God Is One, Though Called By Many Names: Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Disqualification Of Ministers & MLAs For Not Taking Oath As Prescribed

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking the disqualification of 9 ministers and 37 MLAs, who did not take oath as per the prescribed format under Schedule III of the Constitution of India. 

The plea also called for their appointments to be declared unconstitutional and illegal. 

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the plea filed by Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad and said “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 expressions “solemnly affirm.”

The Court further said that there had been instances when the oath is taken by uttering both the aforesaid expressions, and that the same would not pollute the sanctity attached to oaths, the substance of which would need to be seen.

The petitioner argued that the respondents had committed a breach of the constitutional imperative in Article 188 read with Schedule III of the Constitution of India, and therefore, they should all be disqualified.

Further, it was submitted that the private respondents be asked to pay a penalty fine as prescribed under Article 193 of the Constitution of India, for each day of attending office/assembly.

On going through the records the bench held negated these submissions and held that the oath had been taken in substantial compliance of the format.

It observed that it was not uncommon in Indian society for elected representatives to show deference to the sages, social reformers and tall figures who have contributed for the upliftment of society, more particularly, of downtrodden sections, which the English word 'God' employed in the constitutional formats in Third Schedule, denotes.”

It further observed that civilised jurisdictions had moved from form to substance and that that Article 210 provided for taking oath in mother tongue or in any one of the 22 languages enlisted in Schedule VIII to the Constitution.

Accordingly, in dismissing the plea, the court said that it was not convinced that the oath taken by the private respondents did not comply with the requirement of the prescribed formats. 

“We hasten to caution that the failure to subscribe to the oath in substance would give scope for avoidable litigations of the kind,” it added. 

Appearance: Advocate N P Amurthesh for Petitioner.

AGA Niloufer Akbar for R1.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 13

Case Title: Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad AND Government of Karnataka

Case No: Writ Petition No 24939 OF 2023