An oath in whose name?

Source: The Hindu

Relevance: To understand the process of oath-taking

Synopsis: Time and again, the issue of oath-taking and in whose name oath is taken has been raised. The debate should be settled as per the constitution and the observations of SC

Context:

Recently, some Karnataka ministers took oath in the name of Gaumata, Vijayanagara Virupaksha, farmers etc. This again raised the debate about oath-taking.

Constitutional debate:

• On October 17, 1949 the item to be debated in the Constitutional assembly was oath-taking. Dr Ambedkar had proposed “We the people of India”. HV Kamath moved an amendment stating “In the name of God, we the people of India”.
• Thanu Pillai raised the point that this would make oath dependent on the matter of faith.
• This affects the fundamental right of faith as an individual has the right to believe in god or not.
• HN Kunzru also supported this view, stating that it opposes the very preamble which promises liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.
• In the end, the matter was put to vote and HV Kamath’s amendment was rejected.

Court’s view

• SC in 2012 observed that oaths should be taken in strict adherence to the constitution.
• In the case of MLA Umesh Challiyil, who had taken oath in the name of Sri Narayan Guru, SC observed that elected representatives should take oath in strict compliance to wordings of the constitution.
• The Supreme Court of India observed that the oath by an elected representative should be taken “in the name of God” if the person is a believer or should be “solemnly affirmed” if the person is a non-believer.
• This would make the oaths of Karnataka legislators null and void.

Way forward

• Constitution belongs to all the citizens whether that person is theist or atheist. And elected representatives have a greater responsibility for upholding the constitution.