Tuesday, Mar 04, 2003
Tuesday, Mar 04, 2003 |
| Southern States | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | Southern States
-
Kerala
By K.C. Gopakumar
The Bench, comprising the Chief Justice, J. L. Gupta, and Justice R. Basant, also held that "there is no doubt that Sree Narayana Guru was an apostle of virtue. He had truly done good to society. The petitioner as well as a large number of other people may believe that the Guru is a God. They may worship him. But the Constitution does not permit a person elected to be a member of the Legislature to vary the prescribed form of oath.'' The obvious reason "is that if variation were to be allowed, there would be no end (to it). We shall have countless versions of God. This variety might provide the proverbial spice to some but it has the potential danger of spelling the doom of disintegration for all.
The perception of God has to be as that of the entire people. Not personal. Society must get the confidence that the legislator shall work under the fear of `God' as understood by all and not by
The court held that the MLA was liable to pay a penalty at the rate of Rs. 500 for each day he sat or voted in the Assembly. The court ordered that the penalty shall be levied in future if he sat or voted in the Legislature till he took the oath in the prescribed form. The amount had to be recovered from him `as a debt due to the State' by the competent authority.
The Bench made this ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Haridasan Palayil, a freelance journalist.
He said that elected members must take oath in accordance with Article 188 read with the Third Schedule (form of oath) before taking their seat in the Assembly.
However, Mr. Challiyil had not taken the oath either in the name of God or solemnly affirmed, but taken it in the name of Sree Narayana Guru.
As for the contention raised by counsel for Mr. Challiyil and the State Government that the proceedings inside the Assembly were immune from a challenge before courts in view of Article 212, the court observed that "the Constitutional immunity under Article
Whenever there was violation of the Constitution, the courts could not be silent spectators. They were under duty to intervene.
"The courts have a commitment to the Constitution. Not to any constituency. The courts have no vested interests. They are not wedded to any valuables. But only to the Constitutional values. They were sworn in to discharge their functions without fear or favour. They will continue to do so,'' the Bench added.
The court observed that the obvious intention of taking an oath was to ensure that the person concerned made a commitment to live by the Constitutional process.
He should owe allegiance to the Constitution and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of the country. A member of the Legislature represented a constituency. He was not free to cater to the belief of a sect or a section of society. By the very nature of his office, he was bound to inspire equal confidence and faith in the minds of all.
It was intended to foster unity in diversity so as to preserve the integrity of India. This was the `apparent rationale and reason' for the prescription of a form of oath in the Constitution.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
