THE NATURE OF OATH AND ITS LEGAL SANCTITY.
Oath is defined by Bentham as :
“By the term oath. taken in the largest sense, is universally understood a ceremony composed of words and gestures, by which the Almighty is engaged eventually to inflict on the taker of the oath, or sweaner, as he is_ called, punishment in quantity and quality liquidatert, -or more cornrnonly unliquidated, in the event of his doing something which he, the swearer, at the mine time and thereby engages not to do. or omitting to do something which he in like manner engages to do.”
Indian pre-constitutional law was the Oaths Act of 1873. The 28th law commission reports on Oath notices how prior to 1840, in the judicial proceedings, Muslims used to swear by the Koran and Hindus by the Ganga water. The new legal regime came up with the alternative who did not want to take the name of Lord in vain. The oaths act of 1969, which governs the field as of today, also gives the dual option as “in the name of god” and “solemnly affair”.
Amedkar explained that the term “violation of the constitution” in article 56 of the constitution of India, was a wide concept covering all such things like bribery and treason which would on the part of the president amount to a breach of the oath. The COI gave great significance to the president whose oath of office is set out in the main body under article 60 as opposed to other office holder. For the purpose of our discussion, the important take away is that even under our constitutional scheme, as an oath is clearly specified and god has to find place in the process only as framers dictated. Any prefix or suffix to the oath might be constitutionally infirm.
The Kerala High Court in KC Chandy vs. R Balakrishna Pillai had occasion to examine the constitutional significance against the legislator fo his speech of an oath was not a constitutionally prescribed disqualification, it could not be said that there was no sanctity to the oath or that it was a mere moral obligation. The court held that breach of an oath was more for the political executive to examine than for the judges to scrutinise. Therefore, it drew a distinction between a breach of an oath and the absence of an oath. The latter made the occupation of office illegal.
The municipal laws of various countries have devised several securities for ensuring veracity and completenem of evidence given in courts of justice. These securities vary in difierent countries. To these securities be added another very remarkable one which consists in requiring evidence in courts of justice to be given on oath according to the maxim In “judicio non creditor risi juratis” (In judicial proceedings, testimony is not believed unless given upon oath). Apart from punishment for perjury, the main sanction behind an oath is the fear of god.
It has been argued, that the good man speaks truth without an oath, while a bad man mocks at its obligation. Oaths, however, do serve some useful purpose. When once men are under the awful tie, have bound their souls with a bond, it composes their passions, counterbalances their prejudices and interests, makes them mindful of what they promise, and careful of what they assert, puts them upon exactness in every circumstance.
The object of oath,’ it is stated, is to call the attention of the Witness to God, so that he must have the ideas that there will he super-human retribution for false hood but, it is argued, if a person does not believe in God, the love or fear of God rannor.act on him. It is also argued, that people believe in different Gods, and their variety of belief affects their conduct, so that they do not in reality feel any obligation to state the truth. The word “God” in an oath, it is contended, refers to the Incorporeal Supreme Soul and not to any Corporeal Deit. Having regard to these reasons, it is suggested, the words “Supreme and Divine Justice” and the word “Incorporal” should form part of the oath. The invocation or a superhuman power to reinforce the moral obligation to state the truth may be of the essence of an oath in the name of God; but it is hardly appropriate to elaborate that aspect while laying down the form of oath in a statute.
Submitted by-
Bhavya Verma- Intern