1968 (11) TMI 103 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Qualification of the returned candidate based on the oath or affirmation taken.
2. Compliance with Article 173(a) of the Constitution.
3. Interpretation of "Legislative Assembly" in the oath form.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Qualification of the Returned Candidate Based on the Oath or Affirmation Taken:
The central issue in this appeal is whether the returned candidate was qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the State Legislative Assembly, given that he allegedly did not subscribe to an oath or affirmation according to the form set out in the Third Schedule to the Constitution as prescribed under Article 173 thereof. The appellant contended that the returned candidate's oath was invalid because the Gujarati translation used the term "Rajya Sabha" instead of "Legislative Assembly," suggesting a different legislative body.

2. Compliance with Article 173(a) of the Constitution:
Article 173(a) of the Constitution requires that a person must be a citizen of India and must make and subscribe before an authorized person an oath or affirmation according to the form set out in the Third Schedule. The form VII-A of the Third Schedule mandates that the candidate must swear to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. The High Court held that there was substantial compliance with these requirements, even if the compliance was not literal. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that the essential elements of the oath were met, and the deviation in the form did not undermine the oath's validity.

3. Interpretation of "Legislative Assembly" in the Oath Form:
The Supreme Court noted that the Gujarati form of the oath used the term "Rajya Sabha," which commonly refers to the Legislative Council, not the Legislative Assembly. However, in the context of Gujarat, which does not have a Legislative Council, the term "Rajya Sabha" could reasonably be interpreted as referring to the Legislative Assembly. The Court pointed out that there was no authoritative translation of "Legislative Assembly" in Gujarati and that the term "Sabha" generally means an assembly or gathering. Therefore, the Court concluded that the oath taken in Gujarati did not deviate from the essential requirements of Article 173(a) merely because of the popular meaning of "Rajya Sabha."

Substantial Compliance:
The Court emphasized the principle of substantial compliance, noting that minor deviations from the prescribed form should not invalidate the proceedings if the essential purpose of the provision is met. The Court referenced several cases to support this view, including:
- Kamaraj Nadar v. Kunja Thevan: The essence of the provision was to furnish security for the costs of the petition, not the exact manner of deposit.
- Murarka Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. Roop Singh Rathore: The word "copy" does not mean an absolutely exact copy but one that is true enough to avoid misunderstanding.
- State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava: The use of "shall" does not always imply mandatory compliance.
- State of Punjab v. Sat Pal Dang: The certificate by the Deputy Speaker was deemed sufficient compliance with Article 199(4) of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the essential requirements of the oath, as prescribed in Article 173(a) and Form VII-A, were met despite the use of "Rajya Sabha" in the Gujarati form. The deviation was not so vital as to invalidate the oath. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's decision that the returned candidate was qualified to be chosen to fill the seat in the State Legislative Assembly.