When the High Court Itself Starts Sabotaging Fundamental Rights—Who Will Save Democratic Citizens in India?

🏛️ Introduction

High Courts are meant to be the constitutional guardians of liberty, equality, and procedural justice. But what happens when the very institution entrusted with defending fundamental rights begins to sabotage them—through administrative evasion, procedural override, and statutory denial? This blog documents a live grievance from Jharkhand High Court, where affidavit restrictions have obstructed access to justice, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.

⚖️ The Grievance

During the COVID-19 period, Jharkhand High Court issued Office Order No. 84/R.G dated 24.04.2020, restricting affidavit attestation exclusively to designated Oath Commissioners at Ranchi. This was a temporary measure. However, no revocation order has been published since, and notarized affidavits continue to be rejected—even for civil writ petitions.

This restriction:

• Has no statutory basis under the Notaries Act, 1952.
• Contradicts Rule 36 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, which explicitly recognizes notaries as valid attesting authorities.
• Violates Section 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, which mandate publication of facts and reasons behind administrative decisions.

📚 Statutory and Constitutional Violations

🔹 Notaries Act, 1952

• Section 8: Empowers notaries to administer oaths and affirmations.
• Section 14: Penalizes obstruction of notarial functions.

🔹 High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001

• Rule 36: Affidavits may be sworn before notaries, Oath Commissioners, or judicial officers.
• Rules 34–38: Define affidavit format, attestation, and filing—none of which exclude notaries.

🔹 RTI Act, 2005

• Section 4(1)(c): Requires proactive publication of facts behind policy decisions.
• Section 4(1)(d): Requires reasons for administrative decisions affecting citizens.

🔹 Constitution of India

• Article 14: Denial of equal procedural access.
• Article 19(1)(a): Suppression of grievance and expression.
• Article 21: Obstruction of judicial remedy and due process.
• Article 13(2): Prohibits any authority from abridging fundamental rights.

🧭 Personal Impact

As a constitutional activist, I am individually required to file civil writ petitions against CIC, ESIC, and EPFO before Jharkhand High Court. Due to the continued rejection of notarized affidavits, I am procedurally barred from accessing judicial remedy. This is not just a technical denial—it is a constitutional injury.

❓ Intricate Questions of Law Raised

1.    Can a High Court override the Notaries Act, 1952 through administrative circulars without legislative amendment or judicial declaration?

2.    Does the continued enforcement of a temporary COVID-era restriction—without revocation or review—constitute an administrative decision requiring justification under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act?

3.    Is the rejection of notarized affidavits a violation of Article 13(2), given that it abridges rights under Article 14, 19(1)(a), and 21?

4.    Does the absence of Oath Commissioners in district and sub-divisional courts create a caste of procedural privilege, violating the doctrine of equal access to justice?

5.    Can registry-level practices functionally sabotage statutory parity and constitutional remedy?

🛡️ Who Will Save Democracy?

Democracy is not saved by institutions alone. It is saved by citizens who:

• Document procedural sabotage.
• Demand statutory fidelity.
• Escalate grievances from Registrar to Chief Justice to Parliament.
• Convert denial into reform models.

When High Courts fail, citizens must become constitutional auditors. Every grievance must be transcribed, escalated, and replicated—until the system is forced to correct itself.

📩 Call to Action

I call upon:

• The Registrar General and Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court to revoke the affidavit restriction and restore statutory parity.
• The Department of Justice to intervene and issue corrective directives.
• The Supreme Court of India to declare procedural sabotage as unconstitutional.
• Every citizen to replicate this grievance and demand affidavit justice.

✍️ Authored by: Rajnish Ratnakar Founder, RTI & Public Grievance Warriors of India