MADHU PARUMALA Vs. SPEAKER KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that is posed for consideration in this case is whether the oath taken in the name of Allah by respondents 6 to 16 occupying seats in the Kerala State Legislative Assembly as per Article 188 of the Constitution read with the Third Schedule thereto is unconstitutional and thereby attracts penalty under Article 193 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Election to the 12th Kerala State Legislative Assembly was held in April -May 2006 and results were declared on 12.05.2006. One hundred and thirty nine elected members of the Legislative Assembly participated in the Oath or affirmation ceremony conducted by the pro-term Speaker who took oath from the Governor of the State. Respondents 6 to 16 were elected from the panel of IUML, INL and Congress -1 and they took oath in the name of Allah. Later, Secretary, Kerala Legislative Assembly permitted them along with others to enter the Kerala Legislative Assembly on 25.05.2006 for participating in the election to the post of Speaker. Respondents 6 to 16 and others had also signed the roll of members of the Assembly in the presence of the Secretary of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and are now participating in various proceedings in the Kerala Legislative Assembly.

(3.) Petitioner who claims to be the Vice President of Bharatheeya Janatha Yuvamorcha has approached this Court seeking a declaration that the members returned elected from the respective constituencies have to make and subscribe an oath in the name of God or a solemn affirmation, in compliance with Article 188 and in the form prescribed in the Third Schedule to the Constitution of India, that the oath taken by respondents 6 to 16 in the name of Allah is unconstitutional and therefore they are not entitled to participate in the conduct of the business of the house and that they are not entitled to get salary, allowances and other benefits and that their conduct attracts penalty under Article 193 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has therefore sought for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to permit the entry into the Kerala Legislative Assembly only those candidates who took oath in the name of God or solemn affirmation in compliance with Article 188 read with the Third Schedule. They have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to impose penalty on respondents 6 to 16 at the rate of Rs. 500/- per each sitting for non compliance with Article 188.