Karnataka High Court junks PIL against oaths by DK Shivakumar, Cabinet Ministers, MLAs

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition against the oaths taken by the Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, Cabinet Ministers, the Speaker and other Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in Karnataka [Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad vs Government of Karnataka]. .The petitioner, one Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad, moved the Court objecting to the MLAs and Ministers taking the oath of office in the name of voters or other persons instead of taking it either in the name of God or by saying they "solemnly affirm.".A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna Varale and Krishna Dixit, however, found that the oaths were taken in substantial compliance with the format prescribed by the Constitution of India."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 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 Court said in its order passed on December 15, 2023.The PIL petitioner argued that Karnataka deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, eight Cabinet Ministers, thirty-seven other MLAs (including opposition MLAs) had not adhered to the constitutional format while taking their oath of office. Thus, the petitioner contended that their oaths must be declared illegal.The petitioner also sought imposing of fine on all these leaders for each day of "illegally" attending the Assembly. .The bench noted that the format in the Constitution permits "God neutral" oath taking."It is significant to note that, the format permits God neutral oath taking ... 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, which employees the expression 'swear in the name of God' and alternatively 'solemnly affirm,'" the Court said. .It also referred to Kannada sayings, to explain that God is one though he is called by multiple names. The bench also invoked Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad stating, ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti. "This literally means that truth is one and the wise call him with various nomenclatures," the Court explained. .The bench also noted various instances wherein oath was taken by using either of the two expressions, "swear in the name of God" or, alternatively, "solemnly affirm.""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. This is not to subsidise the sanctity attached to the forms, especially those which the Constitution itself prescribes," the bench underscored..Civilised jurisdictions have moved from a focus in "form" to "substance", the Court went on to note. On the flexibility allowed in taking oaths, the Court noted that Article 210 of the Constitution permits one to take oath in their own mother tongue or in any of the 22 languages enlisted in Schedule VIII to the Constitution.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]