Summary
In an Indian Express essay, an IAS officer of the Assam-Meghalaya cadre argues that India should stop requiring sworn affidavits for routine government services and many court filings. The practice dates to colonial laws such as Act XIV of 1848, which allowed affidavits to be sworn before commissioned persons outside court.
The essay argues that affidavits add cost and inconvenience for the poor without verifying anything, because a notary checks identity, not truth. It points to the United States, where unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury have been accepted since 1976 and to Ireland's 2020 law introducing statements of truth.
It proposes authenticated self-declarations backed by clear penalties for lying, keeping the legal consequence and dropping the ritual.
WHY IT MATTERS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
The essay, published on 20 October 2026, revives the case for self-certification more than a decade after the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances urged governments in 2014 to drop affidavits and gazetted-officer attestation for routine services.
Standard News
What Does an Oath Add If the Law Already Punishes a Lie?
A woman swears before a notary that her family's income is below Rs 2 lakh a year. The notary checks her identity, not her income. The office that asked for the affidavit can still examine her documents and make its own inquiry.
If she lies, the law can punish her. So what did the affidavit add? Mainly cost: stamp paper, a fee, travel and a lost day's wages. That is the question raised by an IAS officer's essay in the Indian Express and it reaches well beyond paperwork.
The Affidavit: A Ritual of Distrust
The affidavit entered Indian administration through colonial law. Act XIV of 1848 allowed the Supreme Court at Fort William to commission people to take sworn statements outside court. It was a practical convenience. Over time it became a habit: caste, income, residence and eligibility for benefits now often require an affidavit.
Each requirement tells the citizen that her word is not enough and charges her for proving she is willing to swear to it. The burden falls heavily on the poor. A fee of a few thousand rupees and a lost day's work matter little to the state but a great deal to a family applying for a caste certificate or a welfare benefit.
In 2014, the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances urged governments to replace affidavits with self-certification. Several states did so, but the habit persists.
The Oath: A Ritual of Conscience
A very different case shows the same pattern. In 19th-century Britain, the elected MP Charles Bradlaugh refused to take a religious oath to enter Parliament. The dispute led to the Oaths Act of 1888, which allowed a solemn affirmation instead.
The lesson was that truthfulness was secured by the legal penalty for perjury, not by the religious ceremony. Jeremy Bentham had argued this in 1817: if the law already punishes lying, the oath adds nothing; if it does not, the oath will not stop a liar.
The Strongest Objections
The oath still has defenders and not without reason. For many people, swearing before an official carries real moral weight and may make them think twice before lying. Digital alternatives also raise concerns. Authenticating self-declarations through Aadhaar, one route the essay suggests, raises worries about privacy and about people excluded when authentication fails. Removing one barrier must not create another.
What Holds the Two Cases Together
The affidavit and the religious oath share a feature: both are rituals that stand in for accountability. In both cases, what actually secures the truth is the consequence of lying, through verification, challenge and prosecution, not the ceremony.
The United States and Ireland have kept the legal consequence and dropped the ritual. India can do the same, if the state is willing to enforce penalties for false statements instead of making every honest applicant pay to prove her honesty.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
Act XIV of 1848 allowed the Supreme Court at Fort William to commission persons to take affidavits outside court.
-
A notary attests the identity of the person signing an affidavit but does not verify the truth of its contents.
-
In 2014, the DARPG urged ministries and states to replace affidavits with self-certification for routine services.
-
By 2016, states such as Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Kerala had replaced affidavits with self-certification for some purposes.
-
In the United States, 28 U.S.C. §1746, enacted in 1976, gives unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury the same effect as sworn affidavits.
-
Ireland's Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 introduced statements of truth in place of affidavits in some proceedings.
-
The UK's Oaths Act 1888 allowed a solemn affirmation instead of a religious oath, following the dispute over Charles Bradlaugh's refusal to swear in Parliament.
-
Jeremy Bentham's tract Swear Not at All was published in 1817.
-
Section 227 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes giving false evidence with up to seven years' imprisonment.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
A full account of how the affidavit moved from colonial convenience to a routine burden on welfare applicants
The second domain: Charles Bradlaugh, the Oaths Act 1888 and Bentham's argument against the oath
The strongest counter-views: the moral weight of swearing and the privacy and exclusion risks of Aadhaar-based authentication
The synthesis: why rituals of distrust last longest where the state cannot enforce consequences
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Unlock Premium — Rs.699 AnnuallyDon't have an account? Sign up for free