Karnataka swearing-in ceremony: What is the oath leaders take, and how it was adopted

But what exactly is a swearing-in ceremony, and what is the oath that newly elected office bearers take?

What is a swearing-in ceremony?

A swearing-in ceremony is the formal taking of office of the President, Prime Minister, Cabinet Ministers, Chief Ministers, and other offices. The person to occupy the office swears to be loyal to the Constitution and to discharge their duties faithfully. At different levels of government, the oath is administered by different people. For CMs and ministers at the state level, the Governor administers the oath. For the Prime Minister and the Union Cabinet, the President discharges the function. The oath of office to the President is administered by the Chief Justice of India.

Then CJI Ramana administers the oath of office to President Droupadi Murmu last year. (Photo: PTI)

Those taking the oath can either swear in the name of God, or simply “solemnly affirm” (more on this later).

The ceremony, apart from formally marking that someone is going to occupy a particular post, also underlines the layers which make up India’s political power structure, and affirms the supremacy of the Constitution in our polity.

And what exactly do they swear to?

The words of the oath of allegiance for each post are given in the Constitution of India. The President’s oath of office, in Article 60 of the Constitution, says, “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.” President Droupadi Murmu had taken oath in the name of God.

The Third Schedule of the Constitution details the oaths for other offices. Holders of these offices also take an oath of secrecy.

“Form of oath of office for a Minister for the Union:— 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, [that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India,] that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the Union 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.

Form of oath of secrecy for a Minister for the Union:— “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,” the Schedule reads.

For post-holders at the state level, the oaths read, “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, [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.”

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.”

In Karnataka’s ceremony Saturday, 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.

Who came up with the wordings of the oaths?

The words of the oaths were arrived at after considerable discussions in the Constituent Assembly. One of the sharpest debates was about whether office bearers of a secular state should swear in the name of God. Even after it was agreed upon that God could be part of the oath, there were disagreements on whether “in the name of God” should come before or after “solemnly affirm”, with one leader even thundering at Dr BR Ambedkar that ‘grammar should not stand in the way of God’.

In the oath in the present form, “swear in the name of God” comes above “solemnly affirm”. (Screenshot)

The issue came up on August 26, 1949. Mahavir Tyagi, a member from the United Province, alleged that while “the oath was so shaped that the words “Swear in the name of God” were over the line, and “solemnly affirm” were under it,” Dr Ambedkar had later changed the order.

“Now I am sorry that Dr. Ambedkar has come forward just with a little trick — the trick of a school-boy, if he will pardon me. What he has done is, he has brought on the words ‘solemnly affirm’ above the line, and brought God under the line. If it is to be only a trick, I would not mind it. But we should see that the people do not get the idea that now, after Swaraj, God has gone under,” Taygi said.

To this, Babasaheb replied, “Sir, in this matter I must admit that we have really no consistent policy which we have followed. For instance, in article 49, which has been passed, God has been, I think, placed above the line and affirmation below the line… In this article, to which we have moved amendments, we have merely followed the wording of the principal clause, which runs: “Affirm or Swear”. That being the language of the principal clause, the logical sequence was that the affirmation was placed above the line and the oath was placed below. It is a purely logical thing.”

He also said, “Now, the reason why we have thought it desirable to place affirmation first and oath afterwards, was because in this country, at any rate, the Hindu, when he is called upon in any Court of Law to [give] evidence, generally begins by an affirmation. It is only Christians, Anglo-Indians and Muslims who swear. The Hindus do not like to utter the name of God. I therefore thought that in a matter of this sort, we ought to respect the sentiments and practice of the majority community, and consequently we have introduced this particular method by stating the position as to affirmation and oath.”

Tyagi, however, was not impressed, and shot back, “Let grammar not stand in the way of God.”

President Rajendra Prasad then stepped in to say, “It is not necessary to have a discussion over this matter. You had better vote on it. It is not a question on which there is room for much discussion. As Dr. Ambedkar has said, he has no particular feeling in the matter.”

In the oath in the present form, “swear in the name of God” comes above “solemnly affirm”.