Gauhati High Court dismisses plea against taking oath in name of God under Oaths Act

The Gauhati High Court on Monday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the provisions of Oaths Act, 1969 that entail having to swear in the name of God while taking oath in a court [Fazluzzaman Mazumder v UOI]. .A bench of Chief Justice RM Chhaya and Justice Soumitra Saikia noted that proviso to Section 6 of the Oath Act makes it clear that taking oath in the name of God is not a pre-requisite, and that the matter was not a PIL but a case of personal concern."At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that even in this petition, the affidavit is permitted without adhering to Form No.1 as provided under the Oaths Act, 1969, more particularly Section 6. Considering the proviso to Section 6 of the 1969 Act and in absence of any factual basis of the contentions raised in this petition, the petition is found to be without any basis which is filed for the purposes known only to the petitioner, who is otherwise a sound advocate. The petition does not require any consideration and the same stands dismissed," the Court ruled..The PIL was filed by advocate Fazluzzaman Mazumder contending that swearing in the name of God in a courtroom creates obstruction to the exercise of liberal and scientific thinking guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.The petitioner argued that being a secular, liberal and scientific minded citizen, he is not at all believer in supernatural power or entity and that there is no religion greater than brotherhood and humanity."Petitioner has no belief in existence of God and on that basis, Form No.1 as prescribed under Section 6 of the Oaths Act, 1969 read with Rule 30 (chapter IV) of the Gauhati High Court Rule is ultra vires of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India," the Court stated in order..During the hearing, the Court asked for instances when the petitioner or anyone he knows were forced to swear in the name of God, and the same leading to infringement of their fundamental rights.The petitioner had no answer to this."Enough is enough, we cannot just entertain any petition ... Anything is brought, how are you affected? There is not a single whisper in this plea ... You have not made any declaration before officer. If an offence arises you can come here ... Do not make wild allegations," the Court said..[Read Order]