Observing that “it is not uncommon in the Indian society that people and their elected representatives show due deference to the sages, social reformers, and tall figures who have contributed to the upliftment of society”, the High Court of Karnataka has refused to interfere with minor variation in the format of the oath taken by 46 elected representatives as Members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Ministers.
“At times, tall figures like Bhagawan Buddha (563 BCE-483 BCE), Jagajyothi Basaveshwara (1131-1196), Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (1891-1956), etc., are held as daivaansha-sambhootaas i.e., divine incarnates, which the English word ‘God’, employed in the constitutional formats in the Third Schedule [of the Indian Constitution], nearly denotes the same,” the court observed.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S. Dixit made these observations in its recent order of dismissing a PIL petition, which had sought penal action against 37 MLAs and nine Ministers for violating the format of the oath prescribed in the Constitution. Bhimappa Gundappa Gadag of Belagavi had filed the petition.
However, the Bench hastened to caution that the failure to subscribe to the oath in substance would give scope for avoidable litigation of the kind.
‘God-neutral oath’
The court also said, “It is said in Kannada ‘devanobba, naama halavu’, meaning that ‘God is one, though he is called by multiple names’. This is in line with what Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad states, ‘Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti” which means that ‘Truth is one and the wise call him with various nomenclatures’. It is significant to note that the format permits God-neutral oath taking.”
Pointing out that the oath can be taken ‘in the name of God’ or by ‘solemn affirmation’ without taking the name of any God, the court said, “There have been instances wherein the oath is taken by uttering both the expressions, although going by logic, they are mutually exclusive. However, that does not pollute the sanctity attached to the oath. What one has to see is the substance of prescription and not just the format.”
