HC dismisses plea challenging validity of oath by 45 MLAs

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the validity of oath by 45 MLAs, including several Cabinet ministers.

The petition alleged that the oath taken by several ministers, such as Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, Ministers Satish Jarkiholi, Zameer Ahmed Khan, K N Rajanna, Shivanand Patil, S S Mallikarjun, Laxmi Hebbalkar, Dr M C Sudhakar, B Nagendra and Assembly Speaker U T Khader, was not in the prescribed format, prescribed under Article 188 and schedule-3 of the Constitution of India.

The petition was filed by Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad, a social worker from Belagavi. He claimed that the oath taken by 45 MLAs should be held unconstitutional, illegal and they should be disqualified. He had also sought for recovery of penalty from them in terms of Article 193 of the Constitution of India, for each day of attending office/assembly for taking oath incorrectly.

“Having perused the papers, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the oath has been taken in substantial compliance of the format. It is not uncommon in the Indian society that the people and their elected representatives do show due deference to the sages, social reformers and tall figures, who have contributed for the upliftment of society, more particularly, of downtrodden sections,” a division bench comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit, said.

The bench noted that at times, tall figures like Bhagawan Buddha, Jagajyothi Basaveshwara, Dr B R Ambedkar are held as divine incarnates (daivaansha-sambhootaas), which the English word ‘God’ employed in the constitutional formats in Third Schedule, does nearly denote the same.

“It is said in Kannada ‘devanobba, naama halavu’ nearly 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 literally 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,” the bench said.

The court further said, “It is also significant to note that oath can be taken in the name of God or by solemn affirmation without taking any name of God. This becomes evident by a sheer look at all the formats enlisted in the Third Schedule to the Constitution of India which employs the expression “swear in the name of God” and alternatively other expression “solemnly affirm”. 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.”