Swearing on a holy book makes a mockery of religion, Sikh leaders say

Swearing an oath on religious book in court makes a mockery of religion, spiritual leaders have said. 

The Network of Sikh Organisations warned that official advice saying Sikhs can swear on a holy book is inappropriate and said that the "business of oath taking serves only to trivialise religion and is rooted in deep superstition". 

They called the advice "regrettable" and said Sikhism "rejects all forms of superstition", adding: "We take the view that a truly religious person would be inclined to tell the truth irrespective of an oath."

The guidance, published in the Judicial College's Equal Treatment Bench Book, which contains guidance for judges on gender, religion, ethnicity and other issues, suggests that Sikhs can swear their oath on the Sunder Gutka.

This is an extract from the holy book the Guru Granth Sahib, which cannot be used in court because to do so is "highly offensive and hurtful to Sikhs", the guidance says. 

Alternatively, it says, they can affirm without swearing on a holy book. 

The guidance was produced following consultation with the Sikh Council UK. 

Some Christians also do not swear on a holy book because of a passage in the New Testament in which Jesus instructs his followers during the Sermon on the Mount to "make no oath at all". 

In James 5:12 the Bible also says: "swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yes be yes; and your no, no; lest you fall into condemnation."

Anglicans are allowed to swear on a Bible according to the last of the 39 Articles of Religion, the foundational principles of the Christian Church, which says that while "vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ and James his Apostle", "a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity". 

Religious Jews would not take an oath but would make an affirmation on the Hebrew Bible, the Board of Jewish Deputies, said, because they are instructed not to make oaths except "in the most dire of circumstances". 

In 2015 a judge presiding over the trial of a man accused of robbing a kebab house in Birkenhead, Merseyside, stopped his trial after it emerged that the kebab house manager, a Muslim, had sworn his oath on a Bible instead of a Koran. 

The judge later admitted he had made a mistake because the man had knowingly chosen to swear his oath on the Bible, and it was therefore valid. 

A spokesman for Sikh Council UK said: "There is no historical practice or tradition of swearing oaths on religious scriptures and texts in the Sikh faith.

"We do not consider the practice is in accordance with the Sikh Rehit Maryada (Sikh Code of Conduct) and we view the retention of scriptures in courts without due observation of relevant religious requirements to constitute sacrilege.

We recommend Sikhs undertake an appropriate affirmation instead and we have engaged in consultations with the Ministry of Justice in respect of this.

"We recognise a process of education is required within the community to implement change over a period of time and we remain in dialogue with the Ministry of Justice and other authorities over the matter."

A spokesman for the judiciary said: "The College welcomes feedback on the Equal Treatment Bench book. As stated, it did consult the Sikh Council UK for this section.

"The Bench Book states that Sikhs ‘may choose to affirm or swear an oath’. It explains, in paragraph 32 of the religion chapter that: ‘assumptions should not be made that a religious individual who chooses to affirm has done so because he or she does not intend to tell the truth’.

"It explains that some people may feel that swearing on a religious book is not an appropriate procedure to be undertaken in a non-religious context such as court proceedings."