Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL Against MLAs, Ministers for Oath-Taking in the Name of Voters Instead of God or Solemn Affirmation.
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the manner in which oaths were taken by Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, eight Cabinet Ministers, and thirty-seven other Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), including those from the opposition. The PIL contended that these leaders did not adhere to the constitutional format while taking their oath of office and sought to have their oaths declared illegal.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna Varale and Justice Krishna Dixit, however, ruled that the oaths were taken in substantial compliance with the format prescribed by the Constitution of India. The court observed,
“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 to the upliftment of society, more particularly of the downtrodden sections. At times, tall figures like Bhagawan Buddha, Jagajyothi Basaveshwara, Dr BR Ambedkar etc are held as daivaansha-sambhootaas i.e. divine incarnates, which the English word ‘God’ employed in the constitutional formats in the third schedule, does nearly denote the same.”
The petitioner had argued that the leaders in question had violated the constitutional mandate by not taking their oaths in the name of God or by solemnly affirming, as prescribed. Additionally, the petitioner sought the imposition of a fine on all these leaders for each day of their “illegally” attending the Assembly.
The court’s decision to dismiss the PIL highlights the recognition of the diverse cultural and societal practices in India, especially in the context of showing respect to revered figures who have significantly contributed to society. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s understanding of the constitutional provisions in the light of India’s pluralistic and diverse societal fabric.
Having made these observations, the Court proceeded to dismiss the petition.
“We hasten to caution that the failure to subscribe to the oath in substance would give scope for avoidable litigations of the kind. More is not necessary to specify,” the Court added, on a parting note.
Advocate Amruthesh NP appeared for the petitioner.
Additional Government Advocate Niloufer Akbar represented the State.
READ ORDER
