Oath in Guru’s name unconstitutional: SC

KOCHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday raised a poser on the practice among elected representatives to take oath in the name of godmen.
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. Pointing out that the Jharkhand HC had ruled in favour of swearing in the name of different gods, the apex court pointed out that two differing views are existent on the issue.
The ruling by Jharkhand HC was upheld by the apex court later on. Therefore, it’s a constitutional debate and it should be interpreted as such, the SC observed.
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.
The Upanishads proclaim the principle of "Tatvamasi" and "Aham Brahmasmi". The concept of Brahaman is not a religious doctrine; it is not even a philosophy. It on the other hand, aids in one's search for the ultimate truth. It also connotes and intakes self-realisation.
As said by Ramana Maharshi, the ultimate question which a seeker has to ask is "who am I?" Science or technology or epistemology does not help one answer this simple but the most fundamental question. The outwardness of the mind or the intellect does not help us to get an answer to this question. In essence, Brahman, the self and the Guru are one and the same.
Viewed so, Brahman manifests in each person. Therefore, every man carries godly traits. It follows that the Guru also is God. 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. The earlier decision delivered in the Umesh Challiyil case by the Kerala High Court was rightly approved by the Apex Court. The provision regarding oath is embodied in Article 188 of the Constitution. It reads: "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 on his behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule."
The form in the third schedule does not contain the names of any Guru or saint whomsoever. When the Constitution prescribes a particular mode of oath taking, it cannot be altered or distorted in any manner. Taking oath is not a mere formality; it is a sacrosanct act as held by the division bench of the Kerala high court in G. Raman Nair's case. [2008 (2) KLT 416]. One cannot take oath with respect to a constitutional, legislative or statutory post according to his whims and fancies. If persons are permitted to do so, the direct result would be lawlessness, if not anarchy. Even otherwise, 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.
I think Umesh was ill-advised when he decided to take oath by doing violence to Article 188. I may also say that the episode underlines the requirement for 'constitutionalisation' of our polity. and constitutional education for our politicians. The judgment of the Supreme Court conveys this plain and significant message. To sum up, in the instant judgment, the Supreme Court is constitutionally correct though not spiritually or philosophically.