http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

   (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-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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