Oaths Act: Gauhati HC Rejects Plea Of An Advocate Challenging Oaths & Affirmations Made In God's Name
The Gauhati High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by an Advocate who challenged the oaths and affirmations made in God's name under Section 6 Form 1 of the Oaths Act, 1969 read with Rule 30 (Chapter IV) of the Gauhati High Court holding it to be ultra vires of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice R.M. Chhaya and Justice Soumitra Saikia observed –
"At the outset, it deserves to be noted that in the whole petition there is not a whisper about the fact as to how the petitioner is affected and hence no cause has arisen as tried to be ventilated in this petition. There is no averment or factual basis with regard to the fact that the petitioner has been deprived of any right which is enshrined under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India."
Advocate F.Z. Mazumder appeared as the petitioner-in-person.
Deputy Solicitor General of India R.K.D. Choudhary appeared on behalf of the Union of India and Additional Senior Government Advocate R.K. Bora appeared for the State of Assam.
The Advocate i.e., the petitioner stated before the Court that being a secular, liberal, and scientific-minded citizen, he is not a believer in supernatural power or entity. He also submitted that there is no religion greater than brotherhood and humanity, and he does not observe any religious rituals in his personal life. Hence, he has no belief in the existence of God.
The High Court, therefore, held –
"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 thereof. 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. However, the question raised in this petition being general in nature is kept open. There shall be no order as to cost."
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title - Fazluzzaman Mazumder v. The Union of India and Ors.