Importance of Oath under the Constitution of India.

B V Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General for Karnataka

The High Court of Kerala has recently delivered a historic judgment invalidating the oath taken by the elected councillors of Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation, as the same were taken deviating from the prescribed forms in as much as, while the forms prescribe of taking oath “in the name of god”, the councillors have taken oath in the names of local deities and in the name of “Bharat Matha”, “Gurudeva” etc., and some in the name of martyrs of their political movement. The High Court passed the said judgment and the members accepting the judgment rushed to take a fresh oath “in the name of god”, which enabled them to function as councillors legally.

The Constitution of India prescribes the taking of oath by various constitutional functionaries before they assume office. The Prescribed form of oath for the concerned constitutional functionaries is “to swear in the name of god” or to “solemnly affirm”. Those who do not believe in God are entitled to “solemnly affirm”. Founding fathers have deliberately used the term “God” as it does not refer to any religion or class, but refers only to Almighty.

While the forms of oath for the President, Vice-President and Governors of States are found in the relevant articles of the Constitution, the forms for Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and for Ministers and Legislators, are found in the Third schedule of the Constitution.

Making and subscribing to such oaths is not a mere formality but a solemn act. It is a mandatory requirement to be fulfilled before one enters upon or assumes his office. Adherence to the same is mandatory, and none is entitled to deviate and choose their own form or phraseology. Therefore, it can be said that a valid oath is a condition precedent for one to assume office.

Of late, a tendency has developed among politicians to deviate from the text of the form prescribed in the constitution, and they swear in the name of chosen deity, or even human beings, living or dead, or associations or classes of persons such as farmers or laborers etc. Persons taking oath in such a manner deviating from the text of the Constitution, do not realise that by doing so they are disrespecting the Constitution. It is an irony that, even while taking the oath of allegiance to the Constitution, they virtually disobey the constitution in the very act of taking it. Merely holding a copy of the constitution and displaying the same in public does not amount to respecting the constitution. Allegiance to the constitution should be demonstrated through acts of obeying and following it.

The Kerala High Court has rightly invalidated oaths taken by deviating from the prescribed text, which permits swearing only “in the name of god”. The principle enunciated by the Kerala High Court in the above judgment, which dealt with the case of forms of oath prescribed by the local Acts in relation to Corporators and Panchayat members applies with even greater force in the case of oaths taken by Ministers and legislators, since the form of oath prescribed is by the Constitution itself. Even the President and Vice-President are no exception to this rule, and there is no instance of any President or Vice-President deviating from the text i.e., “to swear in the name of god”. Ministers and legislators must act responsibly by adhering to the text of the constitution and taking the oath in the “name of god”. By deviating from the text, they not only disrespect the Constitution but also God by equating human beings to God. In the process, in law, they become disentitled to assume office which they seek to occupy, as taking of such oath is mandatory.

There is also heavy responsibility cast on the constitutional functionaries administering such oath to ensure that the oath taken is strictly in accordance with the form prescribed. In case of deviation, they should forthwith decline to accept and recognise any such oath. In such a case, the functionary administering the oath should record that the oath was not taken as required by law, in which event, the person concerned will be disentitled to assume office.

The ruling of Kerala High Court referred above is the case of S.P. Deepak v. Kerala State Election Commissioner & Ors. and Connected Matter (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:45209). This is an illuminating judgment by Justice PV Kunhikrishnan which extensively deals with the question of oath and its importance. The ruling furnishes valid reasons why the oath taken should be in the prescribed form only and the adverse consequences of any deviation.

It is advisable for all the Constitutional functionaries taking oath to read the above judgment of the Kerala High Court which will enlighten them on the issue. 

It is hoped that the other High Courts will also follow the above verdict of the Kerala High Court, and that the Supreme Court will also one day confirm the same view.