Per, the Chief Justice Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2. The P.I.L. has been classified in three categories.

(a) Public Interest Litigation,

(b)Private Interest Litigation, and

(c)Personal Interest Litigation

3. This writ petition has been filed in the category of P.I.L. From the averments made in the writ petition itself, we are satisfied that this is not a P.I.L., but it is a S.F.L. We are treating it as a “Shameful Petition” for the reasons that by this writ petition, a young boy, who is yet to complete his Graduation as per the facts stated in the writ petition, tried to pollute the soul of the Constitution. The writ petitioner in his writ petition has grievance that Respondent No. 3, His Excellency, the Governor of Jharkhand, while taking (subscribing) the oath has violated Article 159 of the Constitution of India, because of the sole reason that in place of the word “God” and “Ishwar”, he uttered the word “Allah” added three words “Ke Nam Par” in his oath. In the entire writ petition, the only plea which has been taken, is that under Article 159 of the Constitution, the format has been given, which accepts the oath in the name of “God” or in view of the authentic translation of the word “God” the oath could have been taken in the name of “Ishwar”. According to the petitioner merely because of this reason, the oath taken by the Respondent No. 3 is absolutely illegal, being contrary to the provisions of Article 159 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the matter on 19th September, 2011 at length and thereafter, he was allowed further time to argue the matter.

4. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner formulated five points and substantially they according to him are the questions of law, (i) whether a thing, which is required to be done in a particular manner prescribed by law, is required to be done in such a manner only, (ii) whether any person can be allowed to take oath under Article 159 of the Constitution of India, otherwise than as provided under Article 159 of the Constitution and more particularly, in the manner, as prescribed under Article 102 of the Constitution of Pakistan, (iii) whether Respondent No. 3 could have been allowed to amend the format of oath, (iv) whether the words specified in Article 159 could have been changed and again the question has been posed, that (v) whether the oath taken in violation of Article 159, can be legalized ?

5. As we have already stated, the points raised in the writ petition was only limited that the oath of the post of Governor could not have been otherwise than in the name of “God” and particularly could not have been in the name of “Allah”. But, today, while advancing the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the authoritative translation of the Constitution, which is also by the act of the Parliament, in the place of word “God”, the oath can be taken in the name of “Ishwar” also but cannot be in the name of “Allah”. Then the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that “God” and “Ishwar” are the names of a super natural power and these names are accepted by all, irrespective of caste, creed and religion, but “Allah” is not an accepted form of the “God” or “Ishwar” by all. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the word “Allah” is an Arabic word and the authentic language of the Indian Constitution is English and Hindi, therefore, the word uttered in Arabic language in taking oath by the Respondent No. 3, cannot be recognized and by using the word “Allah”, in fact, a different language, different from recognized language, has been used in taking oath, which is also not permissible under the Indian Constitution.

6. Then the petitioner's contention is that the three words have been added “Ke Nam Par”, which are not the words used in oath, prescribed under Article 159 of the Constitution of India. These arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the