TAG: GS 2: POLITY
THE CONTEXT: Prime Minister-designate Narendra Modi was appointed to the post at a swearing-in ceremony on Sunday evening.
EXPLANATION:
The Swearing-In Ceremony
- A swearing-in ceremony is a formal event where an individual assumes office by pledging loyalty to the Constitution and committing to faithfully discharge their duties.
- In India, this ceremony is crucial for various high-ranking positions, including the President, Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, and judges.
- The swearing-in ceremony marks the official start of an individual’s tenure in office.
- It is a symbolic affirmation of their commitment to the Constitution and the responsibilities of their position.
- The ceremony also emphasizes the layers of India’s political power structure and upholds the supremacy of the Constitution.
Administration of the Oath
- The oath is administered by different officials depending on the position:
- President: The Chief Justice of India administers the oath.
- Prime Minister and Union Cabinet: The President administers the oath.
- Chief Ministers and State Ministers: The Governor of the respective state administers the oath.
- Individuals taking the oath can either “swear in the name of God” or “solemnly affirm.”
- This choice reflects India’s secular nature, accommodating various religious and non-religious beliefs.
Oath of Allegiance and Secrecy
- The President’s oath of office, as detailed in Article 60 of the Constitution, is:
- “I, A. B., do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of President (or discharge the functions of the President) of India and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself to the service and well-being of the people of India.”
- Oaths for Other Offices
- The Third Schedule of the Constitution outlines the oaths for other offices, including an oath of secrecy.
- For instance, the oath of secrecy for a Union Minister is:
- “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 Union except as may be required for the due discharge of my duties as such Minister.”
Variations in these oaths exist for state-level positions.
- According to Article 164 of the Constitution, the text of the oath must be read exactly as prescribed.
- Section 3 of the Article states: “Before a Minister enters upon his office, the Governor shall administer to him the oaths of office and of secrecy according to the forms set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule.”
- Despite the constitutional requirement, there have been instances where individuals have added personal references before or after the oath:
- Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray (2019): Invoked Chattrapati Shivaji and “my parents.”
- Minister Eknath Shinde: Named Bal Thackeray.
- Karnataka Cabinet (2023): Yamakanmardi MLA Satish Jarkiholi took oath in the name of Buddha and Basavanna, while Chamrajpet MLA Zameer Ahmed Khan took oath in the name of Allah and his mother.
- These variations led to debates about their legality.
- However, experts argue that as long as the substance of the oath remains unaltered, additional references are not unlawful.
- For example, former Maharashtra Advocate General Shreehari Aney emphasized the importance of the content over the exact format.
Responsibility for Correct Administration
- If the text of the oath is altered incorrectly, the person administering the oath is responsible for ensuring it is read correctly. For instance:
- Ramdas Athawale (2016): Forgot to mention his name; then-President Pranab Mukherjee corrected him.
- Tej Pratap Yadav (2015): Mispronounced a word and was corrected by the Bihar Governor.
Historical Context and Development
- The wording of the oaths was carefully crafted after extensive discussions in the Constituent Assembly.
- A significant debate centered around whether a secular state should include the option to swear in the name of God.
- Ultimately, it was decided to provide both options: “swear in the name of God” and “solemnly affirm.”
Order of Phrasing
- On August 26, 1949, the issue of whether “swear in the name of God” should precede or follow “solemnly affirm” was debated.
- Mahavir Tyagi argued against placing God below the line. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clarified that the arrangement was based on logical sequencing and majority sentiment, as Hindus typically prefer affirmation over swearing by God.
- Despite Tyagi’s objections, the current format, placing “swear in the name of God” above “solemnly affirm,” was adopted.
SOURCE: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-politics/swearing-in-oath-modi-nda-9381586/
Spread the Word