Advertisement

Affidavits are routinely used for caste, income declaration, residence, and eligibility for benefits, etc. But this does not answer a fundamental question: Why must the statement be sworn at all? Suppose an applicant states in an affidavit that her annual family income is below Rs 2 lakh. The notary neither verifies ITRs, employment records or bank accounts nor bears responsibility if the statement later proves false. The affidavit establishes the maker’s belief in its truth under oath, not the truth of the assertion. The government may still require documentary evidence or administrative enquiry before deciding the claim. We are dealing with four separate questions: Who made the statement? Can the authority or court legally receive it? What happens if the maker deliberately lies? Is the underlying fact true? If identity, admissibility and consequences for deliberate falsehood can all be provided by law, why must I go before another person and swear that I am telling the truth?

During my time in public administration, I have seen the huge cost that the procedural requirement of affidavit imposes on citizens, particularly in smaller towns and remote areas. The line “Affidavit to be enclosed” creates an entire journey. She finds the format, gets it drafted, procures stamp paper, locates a notary or magistrate, pays, and returns to the government office or court carrying substantially the same statement she could have made directly. A few thousand rupees fee, and a day’s lost work mean something very different to a poor person seeking a caste certificate or welfare benefit than they do to the system imposing the requirement.

But the argument cannot stop at the government counter. There is another citizen whom affidavit reform often forgets: The person caught in a legal proceeding — a witness, an accident victim, a maintenance claimant, a spouse in a matrimonial dispute or a person defending her home in a property case too is a citizen. Some inconvenience is unavoidable in administering justice but inconvenience should serve a clear purpose. If the statement needs to be challenged, challenge it. If the maker needs to be cross-examined, summon her. If records contradict her, examine the records. If the underlying fact needs verification, verify it. If she deliberately lies, punish her. Which of those protections disappear merely because she did not submit a sworn affidavit?

Advertisement

To dispense with affidavit is not an untested idea. In the United States, 28 U.S.C. 1746, “Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury”, separates truthfulness and legal liability from the necessity of swearing. Ireland’s Civil Law and Criminal Law Act 2020 has removed the need for making statements through sworn affidavits with electronically signed self-declarations — “Statement of truth.” Crucially, it has replaced, in the proceedings covered by the reform, the sworn form with a statement carrying direct legal responsibility.

Affidavit reform in India has generally asked: “In which cases can we dispense with the affidavit and accept a self-declaration?”. That is, it starts with the affidavit as the default and the declaration as an exception. Perhaps the presumption should now be reversed. The reform can begin with the principle: Preserve the legal consequence, dispense with the ritual.

For government services, an authenticated self-declaration carrying clear legal consequences for deliberate falsehood should suffice. The courts could recognise an electronically authenticated statement of truth, with Aadhaar-based authentication as one possible means of establishing identity, give it the evidentiary status by law, preserve the ability to challenge it and cross-examine its maker, and attach serious consequences to deliberate falsehood.

In Swear Not At All (1817), Jeremy Bentham asks: If these safeguards can be built into the process, and falsehood punished, what does swearing add? Perhaps it is time the affidavit itself proved its necessity.

The writer is district commissioner, West Karbi Anglong, Assam