Allahabad HC Mandates Times New Roman 14, Double-Spaced English Pleadings From Nov 12, Restricts Bold And Italics

During scrutiny of the petitioner’s writ petition, the prayer clause was found to be italicised but had not been reported as a defect.

The Registrar General reported that the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 prescribed double spacing for First Appeal paper-books and quarter margins for specified documents, while the e-Filing Instructions prescribed formatting for electronic documents; no uniform requirements otherwise governed font or the use of bold and italic type.

Separately, the petitioner sought correction of a house-tax assessment and demand and confined his relief to a direction for decision on his representation dated 14 July 2026, which remained pending.

Rule 2 of Chapter XIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 requires double spacing for a First Appeal paper-book.

Rule 6 and Rule 11(4) of Chapter IX prescribe quarter margins for the documents to which those provisions apply.

Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of the High Court’s e-Filing Instructions prescribe formatting for electronic text documents and scanning requirements for annexures.

The Court found no existing uniform rule governing font, font size, line spacing, or the use of bold and italic type across physical and electronic filings, and issued directions to promote readability and uniform presentation.

No statute or precedent was cited as the basis for the directions.

The Court considered the existing provisions limited in scope: they dealt with First Appeal paper-books, margins in specified matters, and electronic filing, but did not establish uniform requirements for all pleadings.

Because inconsistent formatting affected readability and orderly presentation, it directed that English pleadings use Times New Roman, size 14, with double spacing, and Hindi pleadings use a Unicode font, size 14, with double spacing.

Bold type was limited to annexure markings or descriptions in pleadings and the index; italics were limited to reproduced extracts and references to courts or statutory provisions, and could not be used for the prayer or relief clause.

Existing margin requirements were to continue, and the directions were made applicable to physical filings as well.

On the petitioner’s separate grievance, the representation was pending and the respondents did not oppose a direction for its consideration.

It also disposed of the petition by directing the Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj, to consider the petitioner’s representation and issue a reasoned and speaking order within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.