Sample Read
© Taxmann Price : ` 85
Law stated in this book is as updated till 10th December, 2025
Published by : Taxmann Publications (P.) Ltd.
Sales & Marketing : 59/32, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110 005 India
Phone : +91-11-45562222
Website : www.taxmann.com
E-mail : sales@taxmann.com
Regd. Office : 21/35, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110 026 India
Printed at :
Tan Prints (India) Pvt. Ltd.
44 Km. Mile Stone, National Highway, Rohtak Road Village Rohad, Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana) India
E-mail : sales@tanprints.com
Disclaimer
Every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this publication. In spite of this, errors may creep in. Any mistake, error or discrepancy noted may be brought to our notice which shall be taken care of in the next edition. It is notified that neither the publisher nor the author or seller will be responsible for any damage or loss of action to any one, of any kind, in any manner, therefrom. It is suggested that to avoid any doubt the reader should cross-check all the facts, law and contents of the publication with original Government publication or notifications.
No part of this book may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means [graphic, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information retrieval systems] or reproduced on any disc, tape, perforated media or other information storage device, etc., without the written permission of the publishers. Breach of this condition is liable for legal action.
For binding mistake, misprints or for missing pages, etc., the publisher’s liability is limited to replacement within seven days of purchase by similar edition. All expenses in this connection are to be borne by the purchaser. All disputes are subject to Delhi jurisdiction only.
OATHS ACT, 1969
1.
2.
4.
5.
7.
Oaths Act, 1969
[44 OF 1969]
An Act to Consolidate and amend the law relating to judicial oaths and for certain other purposes
Be it enacted by Parliament in the Twentieth Year of the Republic of India as follows:—
Short title and extent.
1. (1) This Act may be called the Oaths Act, 1969.
(2)It extends to the whole of India 1[* * *].
Saving of certain oaths and affirmations.
2. Nothing in this Act shall apply to proceedings before courts material or to oaths, affirmations or declarations prescribed by the Central Government with respect to members of the Armed Forces of the Union.
Power to administer oaths.
3. (1) The following courts and persons shall have power to administer, by themselves or, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 6, by an officer empowered by them in this behalf, oaths and affirmations in discharge of the duties imposed or in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by law, namely:—
(a) all courts and persons having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence;
(b) the commanding officer of any military, naval, or air force station or ship occupied by the Armed Forces of the Union, provided that the oath or affirmation is administered within the limits of the station.
(2)Without prejudice to the powers conferred by sub-section (1) or by or under any other law for the time being in force, any court, Judge, Magistrate or person may administer oaths and affirmations for the purpose of affidavits, if empowered in this behalf—
(a) by the High Court, in respect of affidavits for the purpose of judicial proceedings; or
(b) by the State Government, in respect of other affidavits.
1. Words “except the State of Jammu and Kashmir” omitted by the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, w.e.f. 31-10-2019.
COMMENTS
CASE LAWS
u Validity of Oath Commissioners Administering Oaths in Non-Judicial Proceedings - The petitioner challenged Rule 23(3) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986, arguing that Oath Commissioners were not competent to administer oaths in non-judicial proceedings, and only Notaries appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 had such authority. The High Court rejected this contention by relying on a State Government Notification dated 8 November 1977 issued under section 3(2)(b) of the Oaths Act, 1969. This notification empowered Oath Commissioners appointed by the Rajasthan High Court, Board of Revenue, District Judges, and Collectors to administer oaths for affidavits to be used in non-judicial proceedings. The Court observed that this provision expanded access to oath administration across the State, reducing travel and cost burdens on the public and preventing monopolistic practices. Thus, the phrase “Oath Commissioner” in Rule 23(3) and the corresponding notification was held valid and within statutory authority – Kailash Chandra v. State AIR 1994 RAJASTHAN 177.
u False Affidavit Filed before Authority – Lease Right Validly Cancelled - The dispute concerned cancellation of a residential lease allotment granted to the plaintiff by NOIDA. The lease was revoked on the ground that both the plaintiff and his wife had filed false affidavits denying ownership of any other property, despite the wife already being allotted another plot. The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation, holding that an affidavit, being a solemn statement under oath as defined under section 3(2) of the Oaths Act, 1969, carries sanctity and legal consequence. Filing a knowingly false affidavit constitutes fraud and disentitles the deponent from equitable relief. The Court clarified that affidavits are not mere formalities but are solemn declarations made before a person authorized under the Oaths Act. Since the affidavits were wilfully false and material to the eligibility for allotment, the Authority was justified in cancelling the lease without further proceedings. Irregularities in procedural authorization were held cured by subsequent ratification. Fraud in obtaining the lease nullified any claim for relief – New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar Singhvi (Dead) by LRs AIR 2022 SC 928.
u Authority to Administer Oath – Judicial Magistrate not covered under executive notification - The issue arose over the validity of directions allowing First Class Judicial Magistrates and Block Development Officers to administer oaths for affidavit purposes. The petitioner, a notary, challenged such directions, arguing that under section 3(2)(b) of the Oaths Act, only those authorized by the State Government could administer oaths for non-judicial purposes. The Court held that the term “Executive Officer” is not statutorily defined but, contextually, includes officials performing executive functions, such as Block Development Officers and Circle Officers, thus validating the State Government’s authorisation in their case. However, the Court ruled that Judicial Magistrates, being part of the judiciary after the separation of powers under the new CrPC, cannot be classified as “Executive Officers” under this provision. Hence, the Registrar’s direction authorizing Judicial Magistrates to administer oaths for affidavits under the pension scheme for freedom fighters was quashed – Nawal Kishore Sharma v. State AIR 1985 PATNA 293.
Oaths or affirmations to be made by witnesses, interpreters and jurors.
4. (1) Oaths or affirmations shall be made by the following persons, namely:— (a) all witnesses, that is to say, all persons who may lawfully be examined or give, or be required to give, evidence by or before any court or person
(
(
having by law or consent of parties authority to examine such persons or to receive evidence;
b) Interpreters of questions put to, and evidence given by, witnesses; and
c) Jurors:
Provided that where the witness is a child under twelve years of age, and the court or person having authority to examine such witness is of opinion that, though the witness understands the duty of speaking the truth, he does not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation, the foregoing provisions of this section and the provisions of section 5 shall not apply to such witness; but in any such case the absence of an oath or affirmation shall not render inadmissible any evidence given by such witness nor affect the obligation of the witness to state the truth.
(2) Nothing in this section shall render it lawful to administer, in a criminal proceeding, an oath or affirmation to the accused person, unless he is examined as a witness for the defence, or necessary to administer to the official interpreter of any court, after he has entered on the execution of the duties of his office, an oath or affirmation that he will faithfully discharge those duties.
COMMENTS
CASE LAWS
u Corporate Body not a Competent Witness under Oaths Act - In a criminal prosecution against a company, the issue arose whether an incorporated company could claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which bars compulsion to be a witness against oneself. The Court analyzed the legal capacity of a juristic person to act as a “witness” under the Oaths Act, 1969, and held that only natural persons can make an oath or affirmation, as required by section 4. Since a company cannot physically or legally take an oath, it cannot be treated as a “witness” capable of furnishing oral or self-incriminating testimony. The Evidence Act also supports this view, as oral evidence must be direct and based on perception through human senses—capabilities a body corporate lacks. Therefore, a company cannot become a “witness,” and hence Article 20(3)’s protection against self-incrimination does not extend to it. Further, evidence given by company employees cannot be equated with self-incriminating evidence by the company itself – Godrej Soap Ltd. v. State 1991 CRI. L. J. 828.
u Child witness – Competency without preliminary Oath examination - In a case of homicide where an 8-year-old child witnessed his mother being shot with an arrow by the accused, the Trial Court recorded his testimony without conducting a formal preliminary examination to assess his competence or his understanding of the oath. The High Court addressed this procedural lapse, holding that while it is desirable for Trial Courts to record preliminary questions to determine a child witness’s competence under section 118 of the Evidence Act and the proviso to section 4(1) of the Oaths Act, the absence of such examination does not render the testimony inadmissible. The appellate Court has authority to assess the witness’s maturity and understanding by examining the nature, consistency, and clarity of the testimony given and the manner in which the child faced cross-examination. In this case, the Court found the child to be intelligent and capable of giving rational answers, and his testimony was found credible and corroborated by another eyewitness. Hence, the child’s evidence was upheld as valid – Kabiraj Tudu v. State of Assam 1994 CRI. L. J. 432.
u Illegality of administering Oath to accused for confessional statement - In a murder case where the prosecution relied on a judicial confession recorded by a Magistrate,
OATHS ACT 1969 – BARE ACT WITH SECTION NOTES
AUTHOR : Taxmann's Editorial Board
PUBLISHER : Taxmann
DATE OF PUBLICATION : December 2025
EDITION : 2026 Edition
ISBN NO : 9789371268493
NO. OF PAGES : 20
BINDING TYPE : Paperback
DESCRIPTION
Oaths Act 1969 [Bare Act with Section Notes] by Taxmann is a concise and authoritative statutory publication on the law governing judicial oaths and affirmations in India. The 2026 Edition presents the complete antd amended text of the Act, supplemented with clear section notes, practical commentary, and selected judicial decisions. It effectively connects statutory provisions with their practical application, making it a reliable reference for litigation, adjudication, compliance, and academic study in evidentiary and procedural law. The book clarifies the authority to administer oaths, the obligation to speak the truth, the legal effect of affidavits and sworn testimony, and the impact of procedural irregularities in oath-taking. This book is intended for the following audience:
• Legal Practitioners & Judges
• Law Students & Academics
• Government Officers, Notaries & Commissioners of Oaths
• Researchers & Public Administrators
• General Public
The Present Publication is the 2026 Edition, covering the amended and updated text of the Oaths Act [Act No. 44 of 1969], with the following noteworthy features:
• [Full Text of the Oaths Act 1969] Accurate and authoritative statutory reproduction
• [Up-to-date] Incorporates legislative amendments and relevant judicial developments up to the 2026 Edition
• [Pre-amendment Provisions] Earlier versions of amended provisions included through footnotes for contextual understanding
• [Section-wise Notes] Clear and practical explanations for each provision
• [Selected Case Law] Key judicial pronouncements on affidavits, child witnesses, administration of oaths, and rights of the accused
• [Practical Commentary] Coverage of procedural nuances, safeguards, curable irregularities, and alternative forms of affirmation
• [Schedule of Forms] Statutory forms of oaths and affirmations for witnesses, jurors, interpreters, and affidavits
• [Subject Index] Facilitates quick reference and efficient research
• [Authoritative Publication] Backed by Taxmann's editorial accuracy and reliability
