Oath

What is an Oath?

An **oath** is a solemn and formal declaration by which a person promises to speak the truth or to faithfully discharge a duty, typically invoking a religious or sacred commitment. In legal proceedings, taking an oath means that the person binds themselves to truthfulness and accepts that making a false statement will carry **legal consequences**, including prosecution for **perjury**.

In everyday terms, when a witness in court says "I swear to tell the truth," they are taking an oath. This oath serves as both a moral and legal safeguard — the person understands that lying after taking an oath is a punishable offence.

Legal Framework

The Oaths Act, 1969

The **Oaths Act, 1969** is the primary legislation governing the administration of oaths and affirmations in India.

- **Section 3:** Specifies the courts and persons before whom oaths may be administered. These include all courts, persons having the power to receive evidence by authority of law, and officers authorised to administer oaths.

- **Section 4:** Provides that oaths shall be made in the following forms:

- **For witnesses:** "I do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that what I shall state shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

- **For interpreters:** "I do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will well and truly interpret and translate..."

- **For jurors (where applicable):** "I do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will well and truly try..."

- **Section 5:** Provides that a witness may make an **affirmation** instead of an oath if they object to taking an oath. An affirmation has the same legal effect as an oath.

- **Section 6:** Deals with the **validity of oaths** — the irregularity of an oath does not render the evidence given or the proceedings invalid.

- **Section 8:** Every person giving evidence on any subject before any court is bound to state the truth on that subject.

- **Section 9:** Applies the provisions of the Oaths Act to affidavits.

- **Section 10:** Provides that every oath or affirmation made under the Act shall be binding.

The Oath and the Indian Evidence Act

Under **Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023)**, all persons are competent to testify unless the court considers them incapable of understanding the questions put to them or of giving rational answers, by reason of extreme youth, extreme old age, disease, or any similar cause. A person who is competent to testify is required to take an oath or affirmation before giving evidence.

Constitutional Oaths

The Indian Constitution also prescribes oaths for certain offices:

- **Third Schedule:** Contains the forms of oaths for:

- The **President** (Article 60).

- The **Governor** (Article 159).

- **Ministers** of the Union and State (Articles 75 and 164).

- **Members of Parliament** and State Legislatures (Articles 99 and 188).

- **Judges** of the Supreme Court and High Courts (Articles 124 and 219).

These constitutional oaths require the person to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India, uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, and faithfully discharge the duties of their office.

Oath vs. Affirmation

Indian law recognises that not all persons may wish to take a religious oath. **Section 5 of the Oaths Act** provides the alternative of an **affirmation**:

| Aspect | Oath | Affirmation |

|--------|------|-------------|

| **Nature** | Invokes a divine or sacred commitment ("I swear in the name of God") | A solemn declaration without religious invocation ("I solemnly affirm") |

| **Who may use** | Any person willing to swear | Any person who objects to taking an oath — whether on religious grounds, personal belief, or any other reason |

| **Legal effect** | Binding; false statement constitutes perjury | **Exactly the same** as an oath; false statement equally constitutes perjury |

| **Validity** | Fully valid | Fully valid — no distinction in legal proceedings |

The law treats both identically. No adverse inference can be drawn from a person's choice to affirm rather than swear.

When Does This Term Matter?

In Court Testimony

Every witness who testifies in court — whether in civil or criminal proceedings — must take an oath or make an affirmation before giving their evidence. Testimony given without an oath is generally **inadmissible** and carries no evidentiary value. The oath serves as a formal reminder that the witness is legally bound to speak the truth.

In Affidavits

An **affidavit** is essentially a written statement made under oath or affirmation. Section 9 of the Oaths Act applies its provisions to affidavits. An affidavit that is not properly sworn or affirmed before a competent authority (such as a notary public, commissioner of oaths, or magistrate) may be rejected by the court.

In Public Office

When a person assumes a constitutional office — President, Governor, Member of Parliament, Judge — they must take the prescribed oath before entering upon their duties. Failure to take the oath is a constitutional bar to assuming office.

In Parliamentary Proceedings

Members of Parliament and State Legislatures must take the oath prescribed under **Articles 99 and 188** before taking their seat. A member who sits and votes without taking the oath is liable to a penalty of **five hundred rupees for each day** they sit and vote (Article 104/193).

Consequences of Lying Under Oath

Making a **false statement under oath** constitutes the offence of **perjury** and attracts serious criminal consequences:

- **Section 191 IPC (Section 229 BNS):** Defines giving false evidence — a person who, being legally bound by oath or affirmation to state the truth, makes a statement that is false and which they know or believe to be false.

- **Section 193 IPC (Section 231 BNS):** Prescribes punishment for giving false evidence — imprisonment up to **seven years** and a fine. If the false evidence causes an innocent person to be convicted or results in execution of a death sentence, the punishment may extend to **life imprisonment** or death.

- **Section 195 CrPC (Section 215 BNSS):** Provides that prosecution for perjury can only be initiated by the court before which the offence was committed, or with the court's written complaint or sanction.

Historical and Comparative Context

The concept of the oath is one of the oldest legal mechanisms in human civilisation. In ancient Indian jurisprudence, oaths were part of the **divya** (ordeal) system — trial by oath was recognised in the Dharmasutras and by Kautilya's Arthashastra. In English common law, the oath evolved from religious sanction to a legal obligation, reflecting the secularisation of legal systems.

Modern Indian law has adopted a secular approach — the option of affirmation ensures that the requirement is not oppressive to persons of any faith or of no faith.

Practical Significance

- Every statement in court — whether by a witness, party, or expert — is made under oath, making it legally binding and subject to prosecution if false.

- Affidavits used in court proceedings, government applications, and various legal transactions derive their legal force from the oath or affirmation they contain.

- The oath acts as a **deterrent** against false testimony, as the person is made aware of the consequences of lying.

- In administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings (before tribunals, commissions, regulatory bodies), evidence is typically given under oath or affirmation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a person refuse to take an oath in court?

A person **cannot refuse to give testimony** (unless they have a lawful privilege, such as the privilege against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution). However, they can **choose to affirm** rather than swear a religious oath. The Oaths Act specifically provides for this alternative, and no adverse inference can be drawn from the choice to affirm. The legal effect is identical.

What happens if a witness lies after taking an oath?

Lying under oath constitutes **perjury** under Section 191/193 IPC (Sections 229/231 BNS). The punishment can be imprisonment up to **seven years** and a fine. If the false evidence leads to the conviction of an innocent person and that person is sentenced to death, the perjurer may be punished with life imprisonment or even death. However, prosecution for perjury requires a complaint from the court or with the court's sanction.

Is an affirmation as valid as an oath?

Yes, **absolutely**. Under Section 5 of the Oaths Act, 1969, an affirmation has the **same legal force and effect** as an oath. A person who makes a false statement under an affirmation is subject to the same penalties as a person who makes a false statement under an oath. There is no legal distinction between the two — the law recognises both equally.

Do all courts administer oaths the same way?

The form of the oath is prescribed by **Section 4 of the Oaths Act**, and it is uniform across courts. However, the manner of administration may vary — in some courts, the witness holds a religious text; in others, the oath is administered verbally without any physical object. The choice of form (oath or affirmation, and the manner of oath) is left to the person taking it. What matters legally is that the person understands they are bound to tell the truth and accepts the consequences of falsehood.