[ad_1]
The Oath Act of 1969 violated the rights of non-believers to swear by scientific thought, an Assam lawyer said in his petition.
The Oath Act of 1969 violated the rights of non-believers to swear by scientific thought, an Assam lawyer said in his petition.
Why should an atheist or non-believer be made to swear in the name of God, an Assam lawyer asked the Gauhati High Court.
Fazluzzaman Mazumder, a lawyer practicing in the court, said that the Oath Act of 1969 on swearing in the name of God in the courtroom is an obstacle to the exercise of free thought and science guaranteed by Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.
In his application to the court, he said that Forms 1 and 6 of the oath law require a person to swear in the name of God while stating everything in court. When Article 25 protects the rights of believers and unbelievers, he asked why an atheist should swear by the name of God.
Mr Mazumder said that he does not believe in a higher power or part of a “secular, liberal and scientific-minded citizen” and believes that there is no “greater religion than brotherhood and humanity”. He does not observe any religious practices in his personal life and therefore does not believe in the existence of God, he said.
He added that his right not to believe in a religion or a higher being is recognized and guaranteed in Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The essence of Article 25 is that the right to practice religion includes not being practiced, he argued.
“Furthermore, article 26 says that all religions can manage their religious affairs by giving equal respect to public order, morality and health,” he submitted to the Supreme Court on November 10.
“The petitioner states that there may be many people who do not like to be associated with a particular religion… Article 25 of the Indian Constitution guarantees a citizen’s right to ‘freedom of conscience’. When a person has the right to freedom of conscience and if his conscience dictates that He does not follow any religion, so his rights should also be given as a matter of right,” said the petition.
Mr Mazumder also observed that Rule 30, Chapter IV of the Gauhati High Court Act, 2015, creates a barrier to life according to his belief.
The law in question, he pointed out, mandates “that in swearing and affirming evidence, the judge, notary or any officer or person appointed by the supreme court shall be guided by the Law of Oaths, 1873, and the oath shall be made. In the name of God” .
He referred to the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Laxmi Yatendrulu that ‘Article 25 assures every person subject to public order, health and morals, the freedom not only to entertain his religious beliefs, but also to express his beliefs in the external action of he thinks is appropriate. to propagate or disseminate his ideas for the edification of others’.
“…In the case of AS Narayan V State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court observed that ‘The framers of the Constitution have used the word religion in Articles 25 and 26 in the context of the word dharma. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also explained the difference between religion and dharma as ‘religion is enriched by the process of theory and theology, while dharma emerges through direct experience’. Religion helps change the face of culture; dharma promotes spiritual beauty,” Mr Mazumder said. .
The court is scheduled to hear the case on November 14.
[ad_2]
Source link
