SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(All) 205

Allahbad High Court
JAGDISHSAHAI,MAHESHCHANDRA
Shabbir - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 12/06/1963

Advocates:
S. N. Misra and Asif Ansari, for Applicant; Advocate General and R. K. Shukla, for Opposite Party.

Headnote:

OATH - FORM - AMENDMENT - EFFECT - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTS. 219, 16TH AMENDMENT - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, S. 14 - LETTERS PATENT, CL. 3 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935, S. 220 - Held, the provisions of Art. 219 of the Constitution are mandatory at any rate so far as making and subscribing of oath is concerned. The addition of the words "I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India" in the various forms of oath given in the Third Schedule of the Constitution though very material in some respects did not affect the actual discharge of the official functions by the persons who were required to take the oath. The use of the word "subscribed" in Article 219 of the Constitution makes even the dropping of one word in the form of oath fatal.

Fact of the Case:

The President of India assented to the 16th Amendment of the Constitution on 5th October, 1963. On 7th October, 1963, three Judges of the Allahabad High Court took oath in the old form, which did not include the words "I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India". On 18th October, 1963, they took oath in the amended form. A question arose whether the Judges had entered upon their office.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the provisions of Art. 219 of the Constitution are mandatory at any rate so far as making and subscribing of oath is concerned. The addition of the words "I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India" in the various forms of oath given in the Third Schedule of the Constitution though very material in some respects did not affect the actual discharge of the official functions by the persons who were required to take the oath. The use of the word "subscribed" in Article 219 of the Constitution makes even the dropping of one word in the form of oath fatal. The Governor should not have made a general authorization as he did by means of the letter addressed to the Chief Justice dated 25th August, 1963.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Art. 219 of the Constitution are mandatory or directory? 2. Whether the addition of the words "I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India" in the various forms of oath given in the Third Schedule of the Constitution affected the actual discharge of the official functions by the persons who were required to take the oath? 3. Whether the use of the word "subscribed" in Article 219 of the Constitution makes even the dropping of one word in the form of oath fatal? 4. Whether the Governor should have made a general authorization as he did by means of the letter addressed to the Chief Justice dated 25th August, 1963?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Art. 219 of the Constitution are mandatory at any rate so far as making and subscribing of oath is concerned. 2. The addition of the words "I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India" in the various forms of oath given in the Third Schedule of the Constitution though very material in some respects did not affect the actual discharge of the official functions by the persons who were required to take the oath. 3. The use of the word "subscribed" in Article 219 of the Constitution makes even the dropping of one word in the form of oath fatal. 4. The Governor should not have made a general authorization as he did by means of the letter addressed to the Chief Justice dated 25th August, 1963.

Final Decision: The Court held that the Judges had entered upon their office.

Judgement

JAGDISH SAHAI, J. : This criminal revision was listed for hearing before Satish Chandra, J. who along with Capoor and Tripathi, JJ., was appointed to be an Additional Judge of this Court in the beginning of October 1963. All of the three made and subscribed to the following oath in the presence of the Chief Justice of the Court on 7-10-1963 :

"I _____, having been appointed Additional Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad do swear in the name of God that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will duly and faithfully to the best of my ability, knowledge and Judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws."

2. The Chief Justice purported to act under a letter of authority, dated August 25, 1963 addressed to him by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh. That letter reads as follows :

"Governor

Uttar Pradesh. Governor's Camp,

Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad

August 25, 1963.

My dear Chief Justice,

Thanks for your letter of the 24th August. In exercise of the power conferred by Article 219 of the Constitution of India, I appoint the Chief Justice, or the Acting Chief Justice, Uttar Pradesh and during his absence from Allahabad, the senior-most puisne Judge available at the moment at Allahabad as the person in whose presence every person appointed to be a Judge of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, before he enters upon his office, makes and subscribes oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule of the Constitution of India.

Yours sincerely,

Sd/- Bishwanath Das.

(Bishwanath Das).

Mr. M.C. Desai,

Chief Justice,

High Court, U.P.

Allahabad."

3. On 18th October, 1963, it was discovered that the Constitution Sixteenth Amendment Act (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act), 1963 had received the assent of the president on 5th October, 1963 and by means of Section 5 of that Act, the form of the oath required to be made by a person appointed to be a Judge of a High Court had been slightly amended. Consequently, the same day, in the afternoon, the three judges mentioned above, made and subscribed oath in the presence of the Chief Justice in the following amended form :

"I______, having been appointed an Additional fudge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad do swear in the name of God that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws."

The revision application came up for heaving before Satish Chandra, J. on 23rd October, 1963, when a preliminary objection was taken that not having taken the oath in the correct form, he could not act as a Judge and the oath that he made and subscribed on 18th October, 1963, was bad as the Chief Justice could not have acted for the Governor without there being a fresh and specific appointment of the Chief Justice by the Governor to be present and witness the oath being made and subscribed by Satish Chandra, J. Satish Chandra, J. then made

a reference saying "I refer these questions to a larger bench for decision" without framing the questions. The matter has now been placed before us.

4. The oath that the learned Judges mentioned above made on 7th October, 1963, would have been correct if the Amending Act had not been passed or had not received the assent of the President before 7th October, 1963. Three submissions have been made before us by Sri S.N. Misra. They are :

1. That the Amending Act having received the assent of the President on 5th October, 1963, all persons who took oath of of

















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top