High CourtDivision Bench1990-01-09Petition dismissed

K. M. Sharma v. Devi Lal & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Writ Petition (C) No. 1269 of 1989

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Ranganath Misra
M. M. Punchhi
Judgment Date: 1990-01-09
Court Decision / Holding: Petition dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. M. Sharma

Respondents

Devi Lal
and others

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• K. M. Sharma (petitioner-in-person)

Counsels for Respondents

• Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General; Santosh Hegde, Additional Solicitor General; A. K. Sen; Manbir Singh; Girish Chandra; Ms. B. A. Subhashini

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, K. M. Sharma, sought to challenge the appointment of Shri Devi Lal as Deputy Prime Minister of India, arguing that the oath administered to him did not conform to constitutional prescription. Two core contentions were raised: (i) the oath as Deputy Prime Minister was not in accordance with the prescribed form under the Constitution, and (ii) Devi Lal continued to function as Chief Minister of Haryana when the oath for his new assignment was administered. The Union of India and Respondent No. 1 contested these points, arguing that the description Deputy Prime Minister is descriptive and that, since the Prime Minister and other ministers take the same oath, there is no separate form for Deputy Prime Minister; the oath- taking practice has prevailed since 1950. The Attorney General supported that the Third Schedule form is for Ministers of the Union and that the oath could be viewed in descriptive and substantial parts, with the substantial portion governing validity. The Court examined the issue, relying on a bench decision, Virji Ram Sutaria, to underscore the possibility that the descriptive portion does not vitiate the oath if the substantive part adheres to constitutional requirements. Ultimately, the Court held that Devi Lal is a minister like other Council of Ministers and that the description does not confer Prime Ministerial powers. The writ petition was dismissed with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 75(4) of the Constitution of IndiaSchedule III Forms I and II (Oath/Affirmation by Minister)Third Schedule (Forms I and II)Article 32 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 173 (read with Form VII-A) (as cited in Virji Ram Sutaria v. Nathalal Premji Bhavadia & Ors.)Form VII-A

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Oath may be divided into descriptive and substantial parts; as long as the substantial part is proper, a mere error in the descriptive part does not invalidate the oath.
The oath requires true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and to uphold sovereignty and integrity of India (as stated in the Virji Ram Sutaria discussion).
Descriptive description of an office does not confer additional constitutional powers beyond those of the office holder.
Separation of descriptive and substantive provisions governing oath validity.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the oath administered to Shri Devi Lal as Deputy Prime Minister was not in conformity with the Constitution’s prescription, and that he was still functioning as Haryana Chief Minister when the oath for his new role was administered. The challenge rests on the belief that the Deputy Prime Minister’s oath did not adhere to the Third Schedule forms (I and II) under Article 75(4) and that the post exceeds the constitutional framework, especially if no separate oath form exists for the Deputy PM. The petition also asserts issues around whether descriptive elements taint the oath’s validity.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the designation Deputy Prime Minister is descriptive; Devi Lal is a Minister of the Union with no separate oath form for deputy status. Since the Prime Minister and other ministers take the same oath, the absence of a distinct Deputy Prime Minister form is not unconstitutional. They rely on precedent (Virji Ram Sutaria) to argue that the oath may be divided into descriptive and substantial parts, and if the substantive portion is proper, minor descriptive errors do not vitiate the oath.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Virji Ram Sutaria v. Nathalal Premji Bhavadia & Ors.	[1969] 2 SCR 627	Positive	The Court relies on this bench decision to support the view that the oath can be treated as having descriptive and substantial parts, with the substantive portion taking precedence for validity.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K. M. Sharma v. Devi Lal & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

K.M. SHARMA A _v._ DEVI LAL & ORS. JANUARY 9, 1990. [RANGANATH MISRA AND M.M PUNCHHI, JJ.] B _Constitution of India,_ _1950:_ _Article 75(4) and Schedule III Forms_ _I and_ _II-Oath/Affirmation_ _by Minister-Description_ _of person_ _as_ _Deputy Prime Minister-Whether valid, legal and constitutional._ The petitioner challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 1 as Deputy Prime Minister of India on the ground that the oath adminis- C tered to him as such was not the oath in accordance with the prescription of the Constitution. ## ' ~·· #### The petition was contested by Respondent No. I and the Union of India. It was contended for the latter that describing Respondent No. I D 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. HELD: Respondent No. I is just a MiniSter like other Members of the Council of Ministers though he has been describe<l 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, he said that the oath administered to him as D>puty Prime- Minister G was not the oath in accordance with the prescription of the Constitu· tion. [3E, 2D] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 1269 of 1989. H 1 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, E F 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 1 S.C.R. A (Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia). 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. B A. Subhashini for the Respondents. The Court delivered the following order: ORDER c 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 _-1-_ was not the oath in accordance with the prescription of the D 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. E Pursuant to notice, two affidavits have been filed-one by the Respondent No. 1 and the other on behalf of the Union of India. ln 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. tion came into force has been referred to. F 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 Ministers, he takes the same oath as the other ministers are G 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 V ln vogue eversince 1950. The oath register is by the incumbent signed I as Prime Minister and all other ministers sign as Ministers. He further indicates that describing Shri Devi Lal as Deputy Prime Minister is H descriptive only and for all purposes he is a Minister and there is no K.M. SHARMA _v._ DEVI LAL 3 constitutional sanction for the post of Deputy Prime Minister as such. A 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 substantial 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 oatlw 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." # ' B c D E . ###### .,. ##### **In view** **of** **the clear statement.** ~ade **by** **the learned Attorney** General that Respondent No. I 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 submissions, we think the first contention raised by the petitioner has no force. So far as the second contention is concerned, the petitioner himself does not press it. We accordingly reject the writ petition for the reasons indicated above. No costs. F P.S.S Petition dismissed.