‘Swearing over’ and ‘swearing in’ were the captions given by the newspaper on the day when the new government was invited to take the oath of office. Vijay, in the Lok Bhavan, took the oath in the name of God. This triggered a debate. Schedule III, prescribed under Article 164(3) of the Constitution, provides the format of the oath to be taken by ministers upon entering office. It gives the option to take the oath by swearing in the name of God or to solemnly affirm.
Thirumavalavan, who offered his party’s support to the new coalition government, said that it is a secular government and that taking an oath in the name of God should be removed from the constitutional prescription. A reverse demand was made during the last part of the 19th century. The government in the UK had an Oath Act by which an oath can be taken either by affirmation or by swearing, depending on the choice of the person. This Act was applicable to the court proceedings where the witnesses and other officers will be administered an oath so that they would not lie before the court. The Oath Act of 1883 made in India was also on similar lines which has now been replaced by the Oath Act of 1969.
However, the British Parliament did not have a choice, and all persons who become members of the House of Commons will have to necessarily take the oath only in the name of God. Charles Bradlaugh, who was elected from the Northampton Constituency, was refused entry into Parliament as he refused to take the oath in the name of God. His expulsion resulted in a byelection, and he was once again elected in the byelection and again a similar incident happened. When he was elected for the third time, he decided to storm Parliament with his supporters, which was prevented by the mounted guards, resulting in a bloody clash. Finally, the House of Commons gave the option of mere affirmation or oath in the name of God.
When the Constituent Assembly discussions took place, it was strongly suggested by Dr Ambedkar that the oath need not be in the name of God, and individuals could choose either an oath or an affirmation. But there was no clarity on the subject, and during the final debates (May 1949), members insisted on a clear stand of the government. Finally, it was decided to retain the option of oath in the name of God or mere solemn affirmation.
The idea of taking an oath was that a person who enters into a higher constitutional office will stick to the truth. Sajjad Ali Shah, Chief Justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court from 1994 to 1998, referred to an interesting incident in his autobiography. When he was a District Judge, an appeal concerning financial dealings between two elderly lawyers came up before him. One stated that he had given money, but the other claimed that he never received any money. With a view to arriving at an immediate decision, he called both of them to his chamber and asked them if they were prepared to record their evidence after placing their hand on the Holy Quran. Both parties agreed. Even after taking an oath on the Holy Book, they continued to insist on their respective positions. He writes that, after that incident, he never asked the litigants to record any statement by taking an oath on the Holy Book! (Law Courts in a glass house).
One is tempted to remember a Tamil verse written on false witnesses over a century ago by the Mayavaram Munsif Vedanayagam Pillai. The verse, if translated, goes:
“Bluffer mighty that plaintiff - lo!
Trickster peerless the defendant.
The lawyer, an arch quibbler
Day after weary day
Witnesses doling out lies aplenty!”
Thulasi is an Advocate, Madras High Court