Tamil Nadu CM Oath: God vs. Conscience - Political Ideology Debate

R S Raveendhren
Tamil Nadu’s new chief minister’s theatrical oath in the name of god may have sent his party cadres into thunderous applause; it also triggered serious political discussion within the state. While most of his ministerial colleagues followed his lead by taking the oath similarly, Aadhav Arjun affirmed in the name of ‘conscience’. Curiously enough, on the floor, CM Joseph Vijay took an oath upon his conscience as a member of the legislative assembly.

For the uninitiated, a constitutional oath is a solemn declaration and/or affirmation made by members who are elected, affirming that they will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India that is by law established; uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India; and faithfully discharge their duty. It is sworn either in the name of god or upon one’s conscience.

Oath-taking is as old as time itself. The Code of Hammurabi contains the earliest reference to oaths taken by witnesses and officers. The modern oath-taking traces its origin to the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in Britain. This standardized oath was then adopted by the rest of Europe, the US and most other British colonies. The Presidential Oath, which came into being with the Constitution of the United States of America in 1789, is widely considered to be the world’s first democratic constitutional oath.

In medieval India, ascension to the throne happened by coronation. The Marathas, Rajputs, Mughals, Vijayanagar empire and Chola empire took a pledge or dharma-oath that did not follow a standard format. The monarch pledged to protect people, uphold justice and preserve dharma in the presence of priests and courtiers.

The system fundamentally changed with the advent of the East India Company. When it gradually established a formal structure for governance, public officials were required to take an oath in the name of god before assuming office. This laid the foundation for the system of formal oath-taking in India.

When the British Crown took over the reins of India from the East India Company in 1857, it made oaths mandatory for governors-general, other governors, high court judges, and all other civil servants. This may have marked the legal foundation of oath-taking as a prior obligation before assuming a public office. Interestingly, the 28th Report of the Third Law Commission of India (1965) noted the prevalence of oaths taken on the holy book and/or on the water of the Ganges until 1840.

After the passing of the Government of India Act, 1919, every elected representative took oath under a legislative framework. Subsequently, the Government of India Act, 1935, gave it constitutional status. The Third Schedule to India’s Constitution enshrines oath-taking in pursuance of, inter alia, Articles 164(3) and 188. Our Constitution, in line with its secular nature, permits religious and non-religious affirmations.

The first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, took oath by affirmation. Indira Gandhi, in her first tenure, took oath of office by solemn affirmation and in her last tenure in the name of god, marking a sharp shift in her approach. Many of her successors also took similar oath in the name of god, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

If a single word were to define the political leanings and ideology of someone in Tamil Nadu while assuming public office, it would be his choice of oath — ‘ulamara’ (by my conscience) or ‘Aandavan meethu’ (in the name of god). A quick rewind shows how former chief ministers like C N Annadurai, M Karunanidhi and M K Stalin chose the ‘ulamara’ affirmation that was in tune with the principles of rationality, the pillar of Dravidian ideology. Interestingly, M G Ramachandran, a believer, chose to take an oath only upon his conscience. Later CMs like J Jayalalithaa, O Panneerselvam and Edappadi K Palanisamy swore only in the name of god.

When questioned about the practice of ‘ulamara’ affirmation, Annadurai is believed to have emphatically said that “one can seek atonement and compromise with god, but not with one’s conscience”. In Tamil Nadu, this is perceived as a strong message of political identity. At its essence, oath-taking today is far more than a constitutional formality. It is practically a reflection of the state and its elected members’ distinct political ideology, culture and belief system.

In this light, oath-taking can no longer be a ceremonial formality. When a person elected to public office takes the oath, it is not about reciting words or sentences, but an honest expression of their commitment to truthfulness, morality, legal accountability, justice and constitutional values. Anyone called upon to take oath should and must remember the words of US President Woodrow Wilson who said, “When you take oath of allegiance, the allegiance is towards a great ideal, to a great body of principles and to a great hope of the human race.” May the torch of constitutional morality and the enduring values of the Constitution guide them while they are in office, and afterwards.


(The author is an advocate in Madras high court)