Allahabad HC Imposes 10K Cost For Filing Affidavit Without Deponent's Signature, Directs Removal Of Oath Commissioner For Fraud
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 for filing a supplementary affidavit which did not contain signatures of the deponent. The Court has further directed the removal of the Oath Commissioner who executed the affidavit with the knowledge that the affidavit had not yet been signed by the deponent.Deprecating the practice of Oath commissioners executing affidavits...
The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 for filing a supplementary affidavit which did not contain signatures of the deponent. The Court has further directed the removal of the Oath Commissioner who executed the affidavit with the knowledge that the affidavit had not yet been signed by the deponent.
Deprecating the practice of Oath commissioners executing affidavits without signatures of deponents, Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed that despite repeated requests from the Court, no action had been taken in the cases where affidavits not execute properly had been referred to competent authority.
“The inaction on such acts of Oath Commissioners has resulted in blatant defiance by the Oath Commissioner in executing the affidavits. The present matter is a glaring example of how the Oath Commissioners are acting in execution of the affidavit. It is duty of competent authority to maintain highest level of standard of Oath Commissioners and to weed out dead wood timely before it is too late. The Registrar General of this Court on previous occasions has also been informed about the conduct of some of the Oath Commissioners.”
Observing that the Bar Association have been made for uplifting the working of the lawyers to the highest standard of legal service, the Court held that even though requests had been made to the office bearers of the Bar Association, no steps were shown to have been taken by them to ensure filing of proper affidavits.
The Court observed that “filing of improper and incorrect affidavits before the Court interferes in the administration of justice and also delays the proceeding of the cases as the cases are being adjourned on the ground that the affidavits are not being properly sweared.”
The Court held that although the primary responsibility is of the litigant and its engaged counsel to ensure that proper affidavits are being filed before the Courts, the Oath Commissioners have been given the duty to execute the affidavits in the proper manner.
Perusing the affidavit filed by Oath Commissioner, Kamlesh Singh, the Court observed that though he had the knowledge that the deponent had not signed the affidavit, still he went on to swear it.
The Court observed that the procedure requires the deponent to appear before the Oath Commissioner, sign the affidavit and then the affidavit is sworn and seal and signature of Oath Commissioner is put. However, since Kamlesh Singh had executed the affidavit without signature of the deponent by believing on the clerk of the advocate, the Court held that he had committed fraud on the Court.
Accordingly, the Court directed that Kamlesh Singh be removed as Oath Commissioner.