Oath by god or affirm, says SC

• 
  
• 
  
• inShare

The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that the oath by an elected representative should be either taken “in the name of God” if the person is a believer or should be “solemnly affirmed” if the person is a non-believer. The court’s observation has come while considering a famous case by an Ex-MLA from Kerala that had triggered a legal tangle on whether an elected legislator can take oath in the name of God men.
A bench headed by Justice R.M. Lodha considered the case on Thursday that was filed by Ex-MLA Umesh Challiyil whose oath was declared void by the Kerala High Court citing that he deviated from the exact words of the constitution and took oath “in the name of Sri Narayana Guru.” Mr Challiyil has challenged the HC order saying that his oath should be considered as valid as he believed that Sri Narayana Guru was his God.
The SC bench while taking up the matter discussed various aspects of the Kerala HC order, which said that the oath of an elected representative should be in strict compliance with the wordings of the constitution.

It has observed that the constitution states that the oath should be “in the name of God” in the case of a believer. The phrase “in the name of God” should be replaced by the phrase “solemnly affirm” if the person is a non-believer.
Mr Challiyil had to take a second oath after the HC verdict and he paid `500 per day as fine for sitting in assembly sessions until he took a valid oath.
The SC has listed the matter for November 20 for further hearing on the matter, where it is likely to take a decision on the issue