Brazen Violation of Constitution
Ramachandran
Uddhav Thackeray Should be sacked immediately for two reasons:One:He had sworn in the name of Sivaji and Bal Thackeray,his father.Two: He removed the pro-tem speaker chosen by the Governor.Both were gross violations of the Constitution of India.As one who has covered the legislative assemblies for long,I am shocked by the brazenness on the part of Uddhav and his goons.One is driven to suspect that,Uddhav may soon lose the required numbers for the majority,as shown by the absence of either Sonia Gandhi or her son Rahul at the swearing in ceremony of Uddhav.
Let us discuss the oath in the name of Sivaji and Bal, first.
Article 188 of the Constitution of India says:
188. Oath or affirmation by members Every member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council of a State shall, before taking his seat, make and subscribe before the Governor, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule.
The Third Schedule says:
Form of oath of office
“I, A.B., do swear in the name of God / solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, 1 [that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India,] that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the State of ..........and that I will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” VI Form of oath of secrecy for a Minister for a State:— “I, A.B., do swear in the name of God/ solemnly affirm that I will not directly or indirectly communicate or reveal to any person or persons any matter which shall be brought under my consideration or shall become known to me as a Minister for the State of ....................except as may be required for the due discharge of my duties as such Minister.”
So,it is clear that one can take oath of office,only in the name of God or solemnly affirm,if he is a non believer.
In the famous Umesh Challiyil case,the Kerala High Court had ruled,that his swearing in the name of Sree Narayana Guru was unconstitutional. Umesh, MLA from Kodungallur had taken oath in the name of Guru in 2002.High Court had asked Umesh to sworn in again.
The Supreme Court,after hearing the appeal, ruled in 2012 that taking oath in the name of god men was against the constitution.
The division bench comprising justices R M Lodha and Anil R Dave was considering an appeal filed by JSS leader Umesh Challiyil challenging Kerala high court's ruling against swearing in the name of Sree Narayana Guru.
Umesh's counsel argued that Guru is a god for him and he should be allowed to swear in Guru's name as Constitution allows swearing in the name of god or solemn affirmation. Responding to this, the court queried whether Guru is a god.
The Kerala HC's order against Umesh in March 2003 had resulted in a tug of war between the judiciary and legislature. A division bench of the high court consisting of chief justice JL Gupta and justice R Basant had ordered Umesh, who was elected from Kodungallur constituency, to swear in again. Umesh's swearing in the name of Guru is unconstitutional, the court had held.
The court had also observed in the judgment that if variations are allowed, there would be no end to it and that there would be countless versions of God. The Constitution doesn't permit an elected representative to vary from the prescribed form of oath.
When Umesh Challiyil takes oath in the name of the Guru, he is spiritually right; and when the Supreme Court disapproves it, the Supreme Court is spiritually wrong. But the Supreme Court is legally and constitutionally correct, it said.
The SC also opined that a politician who subscribes to the constitutional ethos and undergoes the electoral process in a working democracy has a duty to abide by the mandates of the laws of the land. Obviously, the Constitution is the law of the laws which binds each and every citizen or politician, for that matter.
In the case of pro-tem speaker,it is the prerogative of the Governor to appoint the senior most person.Pro-tem is a Latin phrase which translates to 'for the time being' in English and so the pro-tem speaker is a temporary speaker appointed for a limited period of time to conduct the works in Lok Sabha or in state legislatures.
Pro-tem speaker is chosen for the conduct of the house when the Lok Sabha and legislative assemblies have been elected and the vote for the speaker and deputy speaker has not taken place.A pro-tem speaker is chosen with the agreement of the members of the Lok Sabha and legislative assembly. Usually, the senior-most member of the house is selected for the post, who then carries on the activities until the permanent speaker is chosen.The main duty of the pro-tem speaker is to administer the oath of office to new members of the house. He also enables the House to elect the new speaker.
Once the new speaker is elected, the office of the pro-tem speaker ceases to exist. He also administers the floor test.Once appointed by the Governor,he can't be removed,as we saw in Maharashtra.Udhav band wagon won riding on the popular moral sentiment of the people.Now they have cheated the people,becoming immoral and illegal.Uddhav is not fit to sit in the office even for a moment.
( The Writer is Senior Journalist and Academic)
