I. Introduction

The affidavit stands as a cornerstone of modern litigation in the Indian legal system, serving as a formal sworn statement of fact voluntarily made by a deponent under an oath or affirmation administered by a person legally authorized to do so. Its utility lies in its efficiency, enabling the presentation of evidence in a written format, thereby expediting judicial proceedings, particularly at interlocutory stages and in writ jurisdictions. However, the integrity of this instrument is entirely dependent upon the solemnity of the oath and the procedural rigour with which it is administered and attested. Central to this process is the Oath Commissioner, an officer entrusted with the quasi-judicial function of administering the oath and certifying the affidavit.

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework governing affidavits and the pivotal role of Oath Commissioners in India. It examines the statutory sources of authority, the procedural mandates for drafting and attesting affidavits, and the evidentiary value ascribed to them by the judiciary. Drawing upon key statutory provisions, including the Oaths Act, 1969, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and a body of case law, this analysis will demonstrate that the role of an Oath Commissioner is not a mere formality but a sacred duty. The judiciary has consistently reinforced the necessity of strict compliance with procedural requirements, penalizing both defective attestations and the submission of false affidavits, thereby safeguarding the sanctity of the judicial process.

II. The Legal Framework for Affidavits and Oaths

A. Statutory Authority to Administer Oaths

The authority to administer an oath or affirmation is not inherent but is conferred by statute. The primary legislation governing this area is the Oaths Act, 1969. Section 3 of the Act empowers courts and other persons having the authority to receive evidence to administer oaths.^[1] Crucially, Section 3(2) allows the High Court to empower any person to administer oaths for affidavits intended for judicial proceedings. This provision is the fountainhead of the appointment of Oath Commissioners. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Manju & Anr. v. Ghanshyam & Ors. (2007) clarified that the phrase "any officer or other person whom the High Court may appoint" under Section 139(b) of the CPC directly corresponds to the power vested in the High Court to appoint Oath Commissioners.^[13]

The procedural codes further cement the role of affidavits. Section 139 of the CPC specifies that an affidavit under the Code may be sworn before any Court, Magistrate, Notary, or any officer appointed by the High Court, which includes an Oath Commissioner. Similarly, Section 297 of the CrPC provides for the use of affidavits in criminal proceedings, which may be sworn before, inter alia, a Commissioner of Oaths appointed by a High Court or Court of Session. The Supreme Court in Kamal Narain Sarma v. Dwarka Prasad Mishra (1965) held that an Oath Commissioner appointed under the CPC could administer an oath for an affidavit required under election rules, indicating that the authority is not narrowly confined unless explicitly restricted by statute.^[10] However, the authority must be validly conferred; an affidavit sworn before a person not authorized under the Oaths Act cannot be received as legal evidence, as held in Abdul Salam v. Ahmad Din (1966).^[12]

B. Formal and Procedural Requirements of an Affidavit

The evidentiary weight of an affidavit is contingent upon its adherence to prescribed formal requirements. Order XIX, Rule 3 of the CPC is a fundamental provision, mandating that affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove. Where statements are made based on belief, the deponent must state the grounds for such belief. The Calcutta High Court, in the seminal case of Padmabati Dasi v. Rasik Lal Dhar (1909), underscored this rule, finding an affidavit deficient for failing to disclose the source of information or grounds of belief.^[5] This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in State Of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik (1952), where it scrutinized the verification of an affidavit.^[6]

Beyond the content, the attestation by the Oath Commissioner is subject to meticulous procedural rules. In Sarabjit Singh v. Ms. Gurpal Kaur (2012), the Delhi High Court detailed the requirements prescribed by it for an Oath Commissioner's rubber stamp, which must include the Commissioner's name, number, period of commission, and specific details of the deponent and the person identifying them. The court observed that failure to comply with these instructions renders the attestation "not above suspicion."^[8] This demonstrates that the act of attestation is not a mere signature but a certification of a series of procedural checks.

III. The Role and Solemn Duties of the Oath Commissioner

The judiciary has consistently admonished against treating the function of an Oath Commissioner as a perfunctory or mechanical act. The Karnataka High Court, in its powerful judgment in V.R Kamath v. Divisional Controller (1997), articulated the profound responsibility attached to this role:

"An affidavit is not a mere typed format, to be signed and attested as an empty formality. An affidavit is a solemn and volutary declaration or statement of facts... Administering oath/affirmation to wrong deponent is nothing but permitting impersonation of a witness giving evidence. Making an endorsement relating to administration of oath or affirmation in the absence of a party, is similar to recording evidence in the absence of the witness."^{[9, 21]}

This principle is reinforced by the requirement that the deponent must physically appear and sign the affidavit in the presence of the Oath Commissioner. The Karnataka High Court in M/S. Mesh Trans Gears Private Limited v. Dr. R. Parvathreddy (2013) clarified that the officer's signature serves as a token of two distinct acts: that the oath was administered and that the deponent signed in his presence.^[11] The practice of pre-signing an affidavit at home and then taking it to the Oath Commissioner for swearing has been judicially disapproved, as it vitiates the solemnity of the process.^[22] The Oath Commissioner's duty, therefore, is to ensure the deponent's identity, confirm their understanding of the contents, and administer the oath in a manner that impresses upon the deponent the gravity of making a sworn statement before a court of law.

IV. The Evidentiary Value and Judicial Scrutiny of Affidavits

A. Affidavit as Evidence

In many judicial contexts, affidavits form the very basis of decisions. As noted in V.R Kamath, "Decisions on Writ Petitions, Civil Petitions, Interlocutory Petitions wholly depend on averments affirmed by affidavit, replacing the requirment of oral evidence."^[9] The Supreme Court's decision in Mehta Parikh & Co. v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay (1956) illustrates this, where affidavits presented by the assessee were given significant weight because the tax authorities failed to cross-examine the deponents or otherwise rebut the evidence contained therein.^[2] An affidavit can also serve as a contemporaneous record of a party's actions or intentions, as seen in Gurdial Sarup v. Kaushalya Kapur (2002), where a plaintiff swore an affidavit to document his readiness and willingness to perform a contract.^[20]

B. Limitations and the Right to Cross-Examine

Despite its utility, an affidavit is not incontrovertible proof. The Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State Of Maharashtra (2012) clarified that affidavits, by themselves, do not constitute evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and their veracity can only be fully tested through cross-examination.^[3] This principle ensures adherence to natural justice. Many statutes that permit evidence by affidavit also preserve this right. For instance, Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, allows a court to summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit.^[11] Furthermore, an affidavit cannot substitute a specific procedural requirement for a sworn statement before a judicial officer. In Rupayan Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (2023), it was held that an affidavit could not replace the examination of a complainant on oath under Section 200 of the CrPC.^[16]

V. Consequences of Defective or False Affidavits

A. Procedural Defects and Their Ramifications

Procedural non-compliance in the attestation of an affidavit can have severe, even fatal, consequences for a litigant's case. The Supreme Court's decision in Ram Prasad Sarma v. Mani Kumar Subba (2003) is a stark reminder of this. The Court held that the supply of a copy of an election petition affidavit that lacked the endorsement of the Oath Commissioner did not constitute a "true copy" under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, leading to the dismissal of the election petition.^[18] The verification by a prescribed authority was deemed a "vital fact." Similarly, an unsworn document cannot be accepted as an affidavit for examination-in-chief, as it lacks the fundamental character of being a statement made on oath.^[23]

B. Substantive Falsehoods and Abuse of Process

The filing of a false affidavit strikes at the heart of the administration of justice and is treated with utmost severity by the courts. In the landmark case of Kishore Samrite v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others (2012), the Supreme Court, upon finding that writ petitions were filed with false affidavits and ulterior motives, not only imposed exemplary costs but also directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct an inquiry.^[7] This judgment serves as a powerful deterrent against the abuse of judicial process. While criminal liability for offences like cheating by personation or perjury can arise from a false affidavit, a conviction requires strict proof of all ingredients of the offence under a properly framed charge, as clarified in Ram Jas v. State Of U.P. (1970).^[17]

VI. Conclusion

The affidavit is an indispensable instrument in the Indian legal system, facilitating the efficient disposal of judicial business. Its efficacy, however, is wholly predicated on the integrity of the oath-taking process. The legal framework, built upon the Oaths Act, CPC, and CrPC, and fortified by judicial pronouncements, establishes a clear set of duties and responsibilities for both the deponent and the Oath Commissioner. The judiciary has consistently held that the role of the Oath Commissioner is a solemn, quasi-judicial function that demands diligence, vigilance, and strict adherence to procedure.

The courts have adopted a two-pronged approach: insisting on procedural perfection, as demonstrated by the fatal consequences of defective attestations in election law, while simultaneously imposing severe penalties for the substantive abuse of the process through false statements. The jurisprudence unequivocally establishes that the act of swearing an affidavit is not a mere technicality but a sacred act that forms the bedrock of evidence in numerous proceedings. The continued sanctity of this process depends on the conscientious discharge of duties by advocates, deponents, and, most critically, the Oath Commissioners who serve as the gatekeepers of sworn testimony.