The Karnataka High Court recently rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the oaths taken by Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, Cabinet Ministers, the Speaker, and other Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in Karnataka.

Bhimappa Gundappa Gadad, the petitioner, approached the Court to raise objections regarding MLAs and Ministers taking their oath of office in the name of voters or individuals rather than following the practice of either taking the oath in the name of God or by stating they "solemnly affirm."

However, a division bench led by Chief Justice Prasanna Varale and Krishna Dixit determined that the oaths were taken in substantial compliance with the format outlined by the Constitution of India.

The petitioner in the PIL contended that Karnataka's Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, along with eight Cabinet Ministers and thirty-seven other MLAs, including opposition members, did not adhere to the constitutional format during their oath-taking. Consequently, the petitioner argued that their oaths should be deemed illegal.

Additionally, the petitioner requested the imposition of fines on all these leaders for each day they "illegally" attended the Assembly.

The bench observed that the format outlined in the Constitution allows for "God-neutral" oath-taking.

The bench further referenced Kannada sayings to illustrate that despite being called by various names, God is singular. Additionally, the bench invoked the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, quoting "ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti," which translates to "truth is one, the wise call it by various names."

The Court elucidated, stating that this signifies the oneness of truth and the wisdom in addressing it by diverse names. Additionally, the bench highlighted several instances where the oath was taken using either of the two expressions: "swearing in the name of God" or, as an alternative, "solemnly affirming."