Part V: The Union

Conduct of Business

Article 99: Oath or Affirmation by Members

--- Original Article ---

Every member of either House of Parliament shall, before taking his seat, make and subscribe before the President, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule.

Explanation

Article 99 of the Constitution of India establishes the mandatory procedure for members of Parliament (both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha) to take an oath or affirmation before assuming their legislative duties. This oath ensures the members’ allegiance to the Constitution and commitment to uphold its values and principles. The requirement also reflects the democratic process and accountability of public representatives.

Clause-by-Clause Breakdown

• Oath or Affirmation Before Taking Seat: The article mandates that before any member of either House of Parliament can formally take their seat, they must make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation. This oath signifies their responsibility to the nation and their role as representatives of the people.
• Authority Administering the Oath: The oath is made before the President of India or any other individual appointed by the President for this purpose. This ensures that the oath-taking process is conducted under proper constitutional oversight, emphasizing the solemnity of the act.
• Form and Content of the Oath: The form of the oath or affirmation is specified in the Third Schedule of the Constitution. It emphasizes the member's dedication to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and discharge duties in the best interest of India.

Real-Life Examples

• Refusal to Take the Oath: In 2006, Dr. Chhagan Bhujbal, a member of Parliament, was prevented from participating in parliamentary proceedings because he had not taken the required oath. His case highlighted the importance of Article 99, as without taking the oath, members cannot participate in debates or vote on bills.
• Debates on Language of Oath: There have been instances when members of Parliament have sought to modify the language of their oath to reflect regional sentiments. Such requests are generally denied to maintain uniformity, further underscoring the role of Article 99 in preserving the constitutional framework.
• Oath-Taking Controversies: In 2019, Pragya Thakur’s controversial remarks during her oath-taking ceremony brought public attention to the sanctity of the process. The incident underscored the significance of Article 99 in ensuring that members uphold the Constitution's secular principles.

Historical Significance

The requirement for an oath or affirmation is deeply rooted in parliamentary traditions. It reflects the principle of accountability to the Constitution and the people. Article 99 ensures that every member who assumes office publicly declares their fidelity to the constitutional order, promoting integrity and transparency in governance.

References

• Third Schedule of the Constitution of India
• Lok Sabha Secretariat Debates, 2006

Legislative History

Article 99 of the Indian Constitution, originally formulated and debated as Article 81 of the Draft Constitution, was officially incorporated into the Indian Constitution on May 19, 1949.

Debates and Amendments

Prof. K. T. Shah proposed amending Article 81 so that members of Parliament make their oaths before the Speaker of the House or the Chairman of the Council of States, instead of the President of India. He argued this change would preserve the internal autonomy of the Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Tajamul Husain opposed Prof. K. T. Shah's amendment to Article 81, arguing that the current procedure, where oaths were taken before the President or their appointee, was more logical. He explained that initially, a member was appointed by the Governor-General to preside over meetings until the Speaker and Deputy Speaker were elected. He found the existing practice preferable and opposed the proposed change.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar opposed Prof. Shah's amendment, explaining that a candidate does not become a member of Parliament until they take the oath. This must occur before the Speaker is elected. Therefore, the authority to administer the oath must rest with the President or someone appointed by him. For members elected mid-session, the President can authorize the Speaker to administer the oath. This sequence ensures the proper procedure is followed, as historically practiced.

Thereafter, Prof. K. T. Shah's proposal was rejected, and the original draft, as formulated, was adopted without any changes in the Indian Constitution.