🚨 The Central Law Crisis in Bihar: How Judicial Rules are Undermining the Notaries Act and Democracy

✍️ Author: Citizen Activist / Legal Observer (Rajnish Ratnakar , Founder : RTI & Public Grievance Warriors Of India)

Introduction: The Tale of Two Affidavits

Every citizen who approaches a court or a government office needs a valid affidavit. In Bihar, a critical administrative rule has created an absurd and discriminatory conflict: an affidavit attested by a Notary Public—a nationally recognized authority under a Central Act—is being rejected as invalid in the High Court, forcing citizens into an arbitrary system.

This isn't a minor administrative hiccup; it is a direct confrontation between the Patna High Court Rules and a law passed by the Parliament: the Notaries Act, 1952. The situation raises the fundamental question: Can a subordinate judicial rule override a Central Act of India?

---

The Unconstitutional Conflict: Notary vs. Oath Commissioner

The root of the crisis lies in the explicit powers granted by the Central Government and the restrictive rules of the High Court.

Authority	The Central Law (Notaries Act, 1952)	The Judicial Rule (Patna High Court Rules)
Power Granted	Notaries are empowered to administer oaths and verify affidavits throughout the country (Section 8).	The Court's Civil Stamp Reporting Section states that affidavits must be sworn before a Court-appointed 'Oath Commissioner'.
The Result	Affidavits attested by a Notary are deemed invalid for use in the High Court, effectively stripping the Central Act of its power within the judicial premises.

Export to Sheets

📰 The Smoking Gun: The SP Gaya Affidavit

The gravity of this conflict was confirmed by the Patna High Court itself in the case of Amjad Hussain vs. The State of Bihar (2021).

In this case, the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police (SP), Gaya, sworn before a Notary, was rejected. The Court was advised that its document “cannot be entertained by this Court under Rule 23 of Chapter III of the Patna High Court Rules.” The Court was forced to treat the official document as a mere report, “not on affidavit.”

If a senior police officer's affidavit is invalidated, imagine the hardship faced by a farmer or a villager from a remote area of Bihar.

---

Impact on Citizens: A Violation of Fundamental Rights

This legal contradiction translates into severe public hardship and a clear erosion of constitutional guarantees:

1. Arbitrary Discrimination (Violation of Article 14): District Courts often accept notarized affidavits, while the High Court rejects them. This creates a discriminatory system where the validity of a citizen’s document depends arbitrarily on the court where it is presented.
2. Denial of Access to Justice (Violation of Article 21): Citizens, especially those in rural and remote areas where Notaries are readily available, are forced to undertake expensive and arduous journeys to the State Capital to find a specific 'Oath Commissioner'. This procedural barrier makes the process of obtaining justice unduly complex and expensive.

The Core Constitutional Question: Repugnancy

The ultimate legal issue is one of Constitutional Repugnancy. When a High Court Rule conflicts directly with a Central Act, the Central Act must prevail. The continued enforcement of a subordinate rule that is ultra vires (beyond the powers of the authority) challenges the very separation of powers doctrine.

By maintaining this rule, the judicial system is arguably encroaching upon the legislative domain, while the Executive Branch, by failing to act, is passively allowing the violation of a central statute. Both are collectively weakening the Rule of Law and, ultimately, Democracy itself.

---

Demand for Accountability and Action

A formal Public Grievance has now been filed with the Chief Secretary of the Government of Bihar and the General Administration Department (GAD), specifically invoking the Bihar Public Grievance Redressal Act, 2015.

The government is bound to:

1. Investigate which rules are causing this violation of a Central Act.
2. Immediately issue directives to all government departments and subordinate courts to accept affidavits certified by Notary Publics.
3. Initiate a high-level inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, into this 'deplorable' and 'unjust' situation that affects millions of citizens.

If the Executive fails to address this grave constitutional and public issue within the statutory time limit, their inaction itself will be challenged in a court of law, using the very proof provided by the judiciary.

The time for administrative ambiguity is over. The state must restore the supremacy of Central Law and guarantee equal access to justice for all citizens.