why the bench clerk or a written desk board adminster the oath to a person at judicial courts.?

Question

is it the presiding officer of the court(judge) have to adminster the oath ? which law governs for oath? if oath is adminsterd by the wrong authority what will be the consequences?

Answer 1

The question relates to the oaths act,1969. it was enacted by Parliament in the Twentieth Year of the Republic of India.
1.Short title and extent
.- (1) This Act may be called the Oaths Act, 1969.
(2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
3.Power to administer oaths:
(1) The following courts and persons shall have power to administer, by themselves or, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 6, by an officer empowered by them in this behalf, oaths and affirmations in discharge of the duties imposed or in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by law, namely :(a) all courts and persons having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence :
(b) the commanding officer of any military, naval, or air force station or ship occupied by the Armed Forces of the Union, provided that the oath or affirmation is administered within the limits of the station.
(2) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by sub-section (1) or by or under any other law for the time being in force, any court, Judge, Magistrate or person may administer oaths and affirmations for the purpose of affidavits, if empowered in this behalf -----
(a) by the High Court, in respect of affidavits for the purpose of judicial proceedings; or
(b) by the State Government, in respect of other affidavits.
(2) All such oaths and affirmations shall, in the case of all courts other than the Supreme Court and the High Courts, be administered by the presiding officer of the court himself, or, in the case of a Bench of Judges or Magistrate, by any one of the Judges or Magistrates, as the case may be.

after reading the sub sec(2) of sec 6 it is cleared that all courts except supreme court and the high courts, oaths shall be adminstered by the presiding officer of the court. there is no question of delegation of this power. statutory provisions are very much clear.
SECTION 7 OF THE ACT SPEAKS ABOUT :
Proceedings and evidence not invalidated by omission of oath or irregularity

.- No omission to take any oath or make any affirmation, no substitution of any one for any other of them, and no irregularity whatever in the administration of any oath or affirmation or in the form in which it is administered, shall invalidate any proceeding or render inadmissible any evidence whatever, in or in respect of which such omission, substitution or irregularity took place, or shall affect the obligation of a witness to state the truth.

Answer 2

A Commissioner of Oaths / Notary Public is authorised to administer oaths. In a Court of law, any designated officer as per the concerned Court's "Rules" is competent to administer such oaths. Courts usually have separate Affirmation Departments. It is the responsibility of the concerned department of the court to ensure that your Affidavit has been affirmed or verified by the competent designated officer, prior to accepting your document .
While deposing orally as a Witness, the sheristedar physically administers the oath to the deponent in the presence of the presiding officer. This is for practical purposes.

The Notaries Act, 1952 governs oaths.

Answer 3

I don't know what jurisdiction you're in, or the nature of the proceeding, but in general, anyone who's qualified in your state to administer an oath can. In most places, this includes (a) judges, (b) court reporters, (c) notaries public, and probably (d) the court's staff.
I believe that each state would set the guidelines, via statute, on who could administer an oath. Because court reporters and notaries public must give oaths to complete their jobs, I can't imagine a state who would restrict an oath to just judges or administrative officers.
I've never seen anyone advance, or be successful on, a claim that his perjury charge was insufficient because the person who put him under oath didn't have the authority to do so. It would be an interesting defense, though.

Answer 4

The presiding officer or the Judge is the boss of the court & any act done in the court by any one is done on his/her order & supervision whether it is administering oath or issuing summons or warrants, whether it is recording of statement of witnesses or summation of arguments by the parties or their counsels all in all any act has to be under the order of the presiding officer or the judge. Any act done in contrary to his or her order or without his or her sanction will be illegal & not applicable for the given case.