K.M. SHARMA versus DEVI LAL & ORS.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 09-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
~·· 
-
• 
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 prescrip-
tion 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. 
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. 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, 
E 
F 
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. 
1 
H 
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. 
c 
The Court delivered the following order: 
ORDER 
Two contentions were raised by the petitioner in this writ peti-
tion 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 Constitu-
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,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.