An oath taken in a court of law, or on a similarly solemn occasion, is a curious mix of ritual and a morality based on, what many would consider, a superstitious view of religion..

When a superstitious person is asked to take an oath on a holy book to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the intended effect is to make him, or her, feel that divine retribution will follow any failure to tell the truth. Similarly, it is assumed that a less superstitious religious person would also be under increased pressure to tell the truth out of a feeling that a false statement would be disrespectful to the holy book to which he or she owes allegiance.

On the other hand, a truly religious person would probably be inclined to tell the truth irrespective of any oath. Indeed such a person might well object to the whole business of oath taking on the grounds that it is rooted in superstition and that it trivialises not only religion, but by an assumption of Divine intervention in the mundane matters of daily life,. God himself. This must be the Sikh position.

Our Gurus constantly reminded us to keep clear of ritual and superstitious practices. They also taught us that God, the ultimate reality behind all Creation, is beyond human fallibilities of anger and enmity..

A God that gets angry when a falsehood is told in His name, could with equal logic, show similar anger to those who drag his name into the trivia of daily life. Such a view of God is far removed from that our Gurus' teachings..

As Sikhs, we are required to distance ourselves from all superstition that detracts from true religion, and this must be true of a practice that requires the swearing of an oath on a holy book. Instead of following the superstitious practices of others, Sikhs should exercise their legal right to simply affirm to tell the truth.. This would also help to avoid the many absurdities and anomalies that face a Sikh in taking part in any court proceedings. For example, in Britain the practice has grown of handing a Sikh a copy of the Japji Sahib and asking him 'to swear on the Guru Granth Sahib' (as if the Japji Sahib and the Guru Granth Sahib were one and the same!) that in the name of Guru Nanak they will tell the truth. Incidentally, though it's not relevant to the main thrust of this discussion, Christians swear in the name of God, not Jesus Christ, why Guru Nanak and not God for Sikhs ?

If Sikhs decide to eschew the oath and assert the right affirm, they will be joining a growing band of others who would like to see the oath abolished from court proceedings. Since 1968 the Magistrates Association, supported by the Law Society and the Justice Clerks' Society, has been urging a reform of the law by the abolition of the swearing of oaths. A similar recommendation was made by the Criminal Law Revision in their Eleventh Report (Comnd 4991 paras 279/ 281). A solemn affirmation following a reminder of the consequences of perjury, would in all probability achieve a greater degree of justice than the swearing of oaths, not only for Sikhs, but, for people of all faiths.