Do We Really Need Affidavits? The Case for Self-Declaration

Source: Original editorial ↗ The Indian Express

The Lift Line

“Preserve the legal consequence, dispense with the ritual.”

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

A column in The Indian Express of 6 October 2026, by the district commissioner of West Karbi Anglong in Assam, asks a deceptively simple question: why must a citizen swear an affidavit at all? It draws on field experience of what affidavits cost poor citizens and on reforms in the United States and Ireland. The theme fits GS2 questions on citizen-centric governance, service delivery and administrative reform, and GS4 questions on trust in citizens and the ethics of public service. It is also a ready example for an Essay on red tape and ease of living.

GS Paper 2: Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability; citizens’ charters. GS Paper 4: Probity in governance; quality of service delivery.

Background and Context

A tool to save a journey. The writer traces the affidavit to Act XIV of 1848, which empowered the Supreme Court at Fort William (Calcutta) to commission persons to take affidavits and solemn affirmations. An affidavit taken this way was deemed to be taken in court, so the maker did not have to appear in person. The device was meant to save a journey.

What it has become. Today, affidavits are demanded for caste, income, residence and eligibility for benefits. The line “Affidavit to be enclosed” sets off a chain:

Step	Cost to the citizen
Find the format, get it drafted	Fee to a typist or agent
Buy stamp paper	Stamp duty
Find a notary or magistrate	Notary’s fee, travel
Return to the office	Another trip, a lost day’s work

The writer says the total can be a few thousand rupees plus a day’s wages, which means something very different to a poor applicant than to the system imposing it.

Earlier reform. From 2013 (a DARPG office memorandum, pressed again in 2014), the Centre asked its departments and the States to accept self-attested copies and self-declarations in place of affidavits and attestation by gazetted officers where possible. The writer notes that such reform has started from the affidavit as the default and the self-declaration as the exception.

The Analysis

1. The oath does not prove the fact. If an applicant swears that her family income is below Rs 2 lakh, the notary checks no income tax returns, employment records or bank accounts, and bears no responsibility if it is false. The affidavit proves the maker’s belief under oath, not the truth of the claim. The government may still demand documents or an enquiry.

2. Four separate questions. The writer untangles what an affidavit is supposed to do:

Question	Can law answer it without an oath?
Who made the statement?	Yes: identity can be authenticated
Can the authority or court legally receive it?	Yes: by statute
What if the maker deliberately lies?	Yes: penalties for false declaration
Is the underlying fact true?	No: this needs verification, oath or no oath

If the law can secure identity, admissibility and consequences, “why must I go before another person and swear that I am telling the truth?”

3. The forgotten citizen in court. Reform often stops at the government counter. But witnesses, accident victims, maintenance claimants, spouses in matrimonial disputes and people defending their homes are also citizens. Every protection remains without the oath: challenge the statement, summon the maker for cross-examination, check the records, verify the fact, punish deliberate lies.

4. Not an untested idea.

Country	Reform
United States	28 U.S.C. 1746: “unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury” carry legal liability without swearing
Ireland	Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020: electronically signed statements of truth replace sworn affidavits in covered proceedings, with direct legal responsibility

5. Reverse the presumption. Instead of asking in which cases the affidavit can be dropped, ask the affidavit to prove its necessity. For government services, an authenticated self-declaration with clear consequences for deliberate falsehood should suffice. For courts, an electronically authenticated statement of truth, with Aadhaar-based authentication as one possible means of identity, should be given evidentiary status by law.

6. Bentham’s question. In Swear Not At All (1817), Jeremy Bentham asked what swearing adds if safeguards exist and falsehood is punished. The writer leaves the question with the reader.

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

Laws on oaths and evidence:

• Oaths Act, 1969: governs oaths and affirmations in India.
• Notaries Act, 1952: appointment and functions of notaries.
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: enacted in 2023 to replace the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; in force from 1 July 2024.
• Like the old Act, the BSA does not apply to affidavits presented to a court or officer.
• Code of Civil Procedure, Order XIX: a court may order that any fact be proved by affidavit.

Administrative reform:

• Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG): nodal department for self-certification reform.
• Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023: decriminalised 183 provisions in 42 central Acts to build trust-based governance.

Place:

• West Karbi Anglong: a district of Assam, under the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (Sixth Schedule).

⚠️ Watch the trap: Self-attestation (signing your own photocopy as a true copy) and self-declaration (stating a fact in writing yourself) are different from an affidavit, which is a statement sworn or affirmed before an authorised person such as a notary or magistrate. And an affidavit is not, by itself, proof of the fact it states.

The Debate

For the writer’s view. The affidavit has become a ritual that costs the poor the most and proves the least. Every real safeguard, from identity to cross-examination to punishment for lying, can be provided without it. Other common-law countries have already moved, and India’s own policy of trust-based governance points the same way.

The other side. For some people, an oath still carries moral weight and may deter casual falsehood. Courts have long-settled procedures built around affidavits, and changing them needs careful legislation. Self-declaration without strong verification could invite false claims to welfare benefits. Using Aadhaar for authentication raises concerns about exclusion of those who cannot authenticate and about privacy.

The balanced verdict. Make self-declaration the default for public services, backed by risk-based checks and real penalties for fraud, and move courts towards a statutory statement of truth. Offer alternatives to Aadhaar for authentication, and keep affidavits only where a specific need is shown.

How to Think About This

Ask what a procedure is for. Many administrative requirements outlive their purpose. A useful test for any answer on governance reform is to break a procedure into its functions (here: identity, admissibility, accountability, verification) and ask whether each function can be delivered more cheaply. If it can, the procedure is a ritual, and its cost falls hardest on the poorest. The same test applies to repeated document demands, physical presence for life certificates, or multiple attestations.

Diagram-in-Words

Takeaway Box

• Thesis: reverse the default; self-declaration should be the rule and the affidavit the exception.
• Origin: Act XIV of 1848 let sworn statements be taken outside court, to save a journey.
• Problem: the notary verifies nothing; the poor pay in fees and lost work.
• Models: US 28 U.S.C. 1746 (unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury); Ireland, 2020 (statements of truth).
• Principle: keep identity, admissibility, cross-examination and punishment for falsehood; drop the oath.

Sources: The Indian Express, column, 6 October 2026

Source: Do We Really Need Affidavits? The Case for Self-Declaration — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis

Key Arguments at a Glance

The writer, a district commissioner in Assam, argues that the affidavit, a 19th-century device meant to save citizens a journey, now forces poor citizens into one: drafting, stamp paper, a notary and fees, for a statement that no one verifies. The writer proposes reversing the default: accept authenticated self-declarations that carry clear legal consequences for deliberate falsehood, and keep the affidavit only where it is shown to be necessary.

✓ Supporting

• An affidavit proves only that the maker swore to a belief, not that the fact is true; the notary does not check income tax returns, records or accounts and bears no responsibility if the statement is false.
• Four questions are distinct: who made the statement, whether the authority can receive it, what happens if the maker lies, and whether the fact is true; law can answer the first three without an oath, and the fourth needs verification in any case.
• For a poor person seeking a caste certificate or welfare benefit, a fee of a few thousand rupees and a lost day’s work are a heavy cost, especially in small towns and remote areas.
• Litigants, witnesses, accident victims and maintenance claimants are also citizens; every protection the affidavit offers (challenge, cross-examination, checking records, punishment for lies) survives without the oath.
• The United States (28 U.S.C. 1746) accepts unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury, and Ireland’s 2020 law allows electronically signed statements of truth carrying direct legal responsibility.

⚠ Counter

The oath has a moral and psychological weight that may deter some false statements. Courts rely on affidavits in many procedures, and changing them needs legislative and procedural reform.
Aadhaar-based authentication raises concerns of exclusion and privacy, and self-declarations could encourage fraudulent claims if verification and penalties are weak.

→ Way Forward

Reverse the presumption: self-declaration as the default and the affidavit as the exception. For government services, accept authenticated self-declarations with clear penalties for deliberate falsehood.
For courts, recognise an electronically authenticated statement of truth by law, preserving challenge, cross-examination and punishment for falsehood.