Read Time: 05 minutes
“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”, the bench opined.
The Gauhati High Court dismissed a petition that challenged the prescribed administration of oaths and affirmations in the name of God to be made before a Court. The advocate, who was the petitioner, was of the opinion that since he does not believe in God’s existence and considers brotherhood to be above religion, the practice of administering oath should be held unconstitutional.
“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”, a bench of Chief Justice R.M. Chhaya and Justice Soumitra Saikia opined.
The Oaths Act, 1969 stipulates the judicial oaths to be sworn in the name of God, to make people bound to state the truth.
In the writ petition before the Court, Advocate F.Z. Mazumder, petitioner-in-person, stated that being a secular, liberal and scientific minded citizen, he is not at all a believer in supernatural power or entity. He further urged that he believes that brotherhood and humanity is greater than any religion, accordingly does not even follow any religion or rituals in personal life as he has no belief in existence of God.
Resultantly, in the petition Section 6 form 1 of the Oath Act 1969 and Rule 30 chapter IV of the Gauhati High Court Rule 2015 was challenged for being ultra vires of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, directions to hold it as unconstitutional were sought.
While dismissing the petition considering the averments made, the bench opined, “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”.
Case Title: FAZLUZZAMAN MAZUMDER vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Please Login or Register
