PETITIONER:
K.M. SHARMA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DEVI LAL & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT09/01/1990
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
PUNCHHI, M.M.
CITATION:
1990 AIR 528 1990 SCR (1) 1
1990 SCC (1) 438 JT 1990 (1) 5
1990 SCALE (1)1
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 75(4) and Schedule
111 Forms I and II--Oath/Affirmation by Minister--Descrip-
tion of person as Deputy Prime Minister--Whether valid,
legal and constitutional.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of Respondent
No. 1 as Deputy Prime Minister of India on the ground that
the oath administered to him as such was not the oath in
accordance with the prescription of the Constitution.
The petition was contested by Respondent No. 1 and the
Union of India. It was contended for the latter that de-
scribing Respondent No. 1 as Deputy Prime Minister was
descriptive and for all purposes he was a Minister, that the
form of oath prescribed in the Third Schedule pursuant to
the requirement of Article 75(4) of the Constitution is only
for a Minister of the Union, and that there was no separate
form even for the Prime Minister.
It was further submitted that the prescribed oath is
susceptible of division into two parts, descriptive and
substantial, and as long as the substantial part is properly
followed, as in the instant case, a mere mistake or error in
the descriptive part would not vitiate the oath.
Dismissing the writ petition,
HELD: Respondent No. 1 is just a Minister like other
Members of the Council of Ministers though he has been
described as Deputy Prime Minister. The description of him
as Deputy Prime Minister does not confer on him any power of
Prime Minister. It cannot, therefore, be said that the oath
administered to him as Deputy Prime Minister was not the
oath
in accordance with the prescription of the Constitution.
[3E, 2D]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 1269 of
1989.
2
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
K.M. Sharma petitioner-in-person.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Santosh Hegde,
Additional Solicitor General, A.K. Sen, Manbir Singh, Girish
Chandra and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
The Court delivered the following order:
ORDER
Two contentions were raised by the petitioner in this
writ petition challenging the appointment of Respondent No.
1, Shri Devi Lal as Deputy Prime Minister of India:
(i) that the oath administered to him as Deputy Prime
Minister was not the oath in accordance with the prescrip-
tion of the Constitution; and
(ii) he was still functioning as the Chief Minister of
Haryana when the oath of office of his new assignment was
administered to him.
Pursuant to notice, two affidavits have been filed–one
by the Respondent No. 1 and the other on behalf of the Union
of India. In the affidavit of Respondent No. 1 certain
precedents have been relied upon and the practice which has
been followed eversince the Constitution came into force has
been referred to.
Learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the
Union of India has stated that the form prescribed in the
Third Schedule pursuant to the requirement of Article 75(4)
of the Constitution is only for a Minister of the Union and
there is no separate form even for the Prime Minister. Since
the Prime Minister is also a member of the Council of Minis-
ters, he takes the same oath as the other ministers are
required to take. He maintains that yet in view of the fact
that the Constitution describes him as the Prime Minister,
while being sworn into office, he describes himself as Prime
Minister and this practice is in vogue eversince 1950. The
oath register is by the incumbent signed as Prime Minister
and all other ministers sign as Ministers. He further indi-
cates that describing Shri Devi Lal as Deputy Prime Minister
is descriptive only and for all purposes he is a Minister
and there is no
3
constitutional sanction for the post of Deputy Prime Minis-
ter as such.
Relying on a bench decision of this Court in the case of
Virji Ram Sutaria v. Nathalal Premji Bhavadia & Ors., [1969]
2 SCR 627, learned Attorney General further contends that
the prescribed oath should be divided into two parts, one
which is descriptive and the other which contains the sub-
stantial part. And according to him, as long as the
substantial part is properly followed, a mere mistake or
error in the –descriptive part would not vitiate the oath.
This Court in the reported decision said:
“In this case, as we have already noted, the essential
requirement of Article 173 read with Form VII-A was that the
person taking the oath or making the affirmation would bear
true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and uphold the
sovereignty and integrity of India. The words which precede
this portion are merely descriptive of the person and of his
nomination as a candidate.”
In view of the clear statement. made by the learned
Attorney General that Respondent No. 1 is just a Minister
like other members of the Council of Ministers though he has
been described as Deputy Prime Minister but the description
of him as Deputy Prime Minister does not confer on him any
powers of the Prime Minister, along with his other submis-
sions, we think the first contention raised by the petition-
er has no force. So far as the second contention is con-
cerned, the petitioner himself does not press it.
We accordingly reject the writ petition for the reasons
indicated above. No costs.
P.S. S Petition
dismissed.
4
