Alarming rise in ‘illegal’ affidavits

“The working of oath commissioners in the High Court is not being monitored by any authority. From inspection,the Registrar (Rules) found that none of the oath commissioners was following the rules or regulations for attestation as no receipt was provided for in the High Court Rules and orders were being issued to the deponent. Only one oath commissioner,namely,Randhir Singh Rattan,was maintaining a receipt book. He had issued only 62 receipts from May 14,2010 till date,whereas even from April 18,2011 onwards,he had attested nearly 1,000 affidavits.”

The Registrar,in his report,has further submitted that “almost all the oath commissioners are in the habit of leaving blank entries in the Register,which are used by them for ante-dating the affidavits to be filed in Court. The oath commissioners were not obtaining signatures of the deponent in the column meant for it in the Register.

“The registers being maintained by the oath commissioners are not in printed form,as provided for under the rules. They are making entries in exercise note books which are used by school/ college students. The registers are not certified in terms of the rules”.

Further,the report states that “one of the oath commissioners is deaf and dumb whereas one is not able to speak. The seals maintained by the oath commissioners are not proper and the wording of the seals maintained by the oath commissioners are also not in terms of the rules”.

The Registrar has stated that “this is not a case in isolation where these types of affidavits are produced in Court. Rather,it has become a routine that affidavits are produced in the Court which are attested by the oath commissioners,whether placed at Chandigarh or anywhere else,which are attested in the absence of the deponent.”

“Oath Commissioner K C Badhan,who was summoned in this Court on the last date of hearing,was candid in saying that he does not know any rules or regulations regarding attestation of affidavits or the duty of the oath Commissioner”.

Reproducing the key findings,Justice Bindal ruled “Recently,a similar issue had come up before this Court wherein the deponent was identified by a counsel and the affidavit attested by the oath commissioner despite the fact that the person who had sworn the affidavit was not even present in India on the date the affidavit was sworn and attested.”