Context
Some Cabinet Ministers in Karnataka who took oath recently stood out from the rest. All these oaths run against the spirit of the Constitution.
Background of agnostic Constitution
- The public officials who took office under the Government of India Act, 1935 had to take oath which had no mention of God.
- During the Constituent Assembly debate, B.R. Ambedkar proposed the Preamble, “We, the people of India…”.
- H.V. Kamath moved an amendment to the Preamble, “In the name of God, we, the people of India…”.
- To this proposal, another member, A. Thanu Pillai said that if this amendment is accepted it would affect the fundamental right of freedom of faith.
- He said that a man has a right to believe in God or not, according to the Constitution.
- H.N. Kunzru opposed Kamath’s amendment stating that in a matter that vitally concerns every man individually, the collective view should not be forced on anybody.
- The amendment was defeated, thereby excluding ‘God’ from the Preamble.
- Thus, our founding fathers gave us an agnostic Constitution.
What are provisions in Consitution
- The public officials who took office under the Government of India Act, 1935 had to take oath which had no mention of God.
- However, the framers of the Indian Constitution rejected this conception of secularism.
- Constitution gives office-holders an option to swear in God’s name if they so wished.
- The Supreme Court of India observed in 2012 that the oath by an elected representative should be taken “in the name of God” if the person is a believer or should be “solemnly affirmed” if the person is a non-believer.
- The Supreme Court said that the oath of an elected representative should be in strict compliance with the wordings of the Constitution.
Way forward
- As the Republic belongs to all the citizenry, irrespective of whether he is a theist, atheist or agnostic, and irrespective of his caste or religion, a person occupying a constitutional post should take oath in the format of ‘“solemnly affirm”.
- The Constitution should be amended accordingly.
Conclusion
If a person takes the oath in the name of a God affiliated to a particular religion or caste, the citizenry cannot expect the absence of affection or ill-will from him. The allegiance of a person holding a constitutional post should only be to the Constitution.
