Elected representatives should face “serious consequences” for not taking the oath of office within a specified time, the Supreme Court urged State Legislatures in a judgment.
A Bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta said measures should be taken to videograph the swearing in or oath taking so that no dispute arises in the future. The court’s judgment focuses on elected representatives of local bodies and their swearing-in.
No-confidence motion
The case concerned a no-confidence motion against Uttar Pradesh’s Kshettra panchayat pramukh. The pramukh said some of the elected members had not taken oath and their votes were invalid.
Dismissing the contention in its recent judgment, Justice Lokur, however, wrote that such disputes would erupt unless State legislatures provide provisions specifying consequences against elected members who do not take their oath of allegiance.
Justice Lokur said the Constitution attached a great degree of solemnity to the oath of office. For example, Article 60 provides that before entering upon his office, the President shall make and subscribe the oath or affirmation.
Similarly, Article 69 requires the Vice-President to make and subscribe the oath or affirmation before entering upon his office.
Article 84 requires that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in Parliament unless he makes and subscribes the oath or affirmation according to the forms set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule. Article 188 refers to the oath or affirmation by a member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council.
“It should be appreciated that apart from requiring elected representatives of a panchayat attaching seriousness to taking the oath of office, an unimpeachable record of the elected representatives taking the oath of office should be maintained by officials of the State government,” the Supreme Court observed in its judgment.
Noting that such controversies are “completely avoidable,” the court said “unless the sanctity of the oath of office is appreciated and appropriate documentation kept, we will continue to be faced with situations such as the present one where a dispute is raised whether an elected member of a body has taken the oath of office.”
