A widely accepted narrative and practice in India is that the Chief Justice of India (CJI)
administers the oath of office to the President during the oath-taking ceremony.
However, a careful reading of the Constitution reveals that this common belief is not entirely
accurate. The Constitution deliberately distinguishes between the roles of the President and
the Chief Justice in the oath-taking process, and the specific wording used clearly shows
that the Chief Justice’s role is primarily that of a witness, not an administrator.
This article explores these constitutional nuances, focusing on the precise language in
Articles 60 and 124(6), comparing them with related provisions for Governors and High
Court judges, and reflecting on resignation procedures and oath content to dispel this
popular myth.
Article 60: What the Constitution Actually Says
Article 60 of the Constitution states:
“Every President and every person acting as President or discharging the functions of the
President shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe in the presence of the
Chief Justice of India, or, in his absence, the senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court
available, an oath or affirmation in the following form…”
— Article 60, Constitution of India
Thus, the President takes the oath “in the presence of” the Chief Justice of India — not
before him as a superior, and not by having it administered by him.
Article 124(6): A Different Language, A Different Role
Article 124(6), which governs the oath of Supreme Court judges, reads:
“Every person appointed to be a Judge of the Supreme Court shall, before he enters upon
his office, 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.”
— Article 124(6), Constitution of India
Here, the phrase “before the President” indicates that the President has the authority to
administer the oath and may even delegate it to someone else.
This contrast between “in the presence of” (used in Article 60) and “before” (used in
Article 124(6)) reflects a constitutional distinction between merely witnessing an oath
and having the authority to administer it.
This textual difference between Articles 60 and 124(6) is not incidental — it reflects a
deeper constitutional design, which becomes clearer when we consider the rules for
delegation and authority.
Delegation of Authority: A Subtle but Significant Difference
Article 60 stipulates that in the absence of the Chief Justice, the senior-most judge of the
Supreme Court available shall be present — not a person delegated by the CJI.
“…in the presence of the Chief Justice of India or, in his absence, the senior-most Judge of
the Supreme Court available…”
— Article 60
This is a fixed constitutional succession, not a discretionary delegation by the CJI. The
Chief Justice has no administrative authority over the oath-taking process.
In contrast, Article 124(6) allows the President to delegate the authority to administer the
oath to judges of the Supreme Court. This demonstrates a clear constitutional intent when
administrative authority is intended to be conferred.
Constituent Assembly Debate: Article 49 of Draft Constitution / Article 60 of Present
Indian Constitution:
While reviewing the Constituent Assembly debates, I came across Amendment No. 1144,
proposed by Shri T. T. Krishnamachari during discussions on Article 49 of the Draft
Constitution:
Shri T. T. Krishnamachari:
Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I move:
"That in Article 49, after the words 'Chief Justice of India' the words "or, in his absence the senior-most Judge of the Supreme Court available' be inserted."
Sir, this is only making a provision in case the Chief Justice of India is not present, some
other Judge should do his function, and it is but proper that the senior-most judge of the
Supreme Court should do this function. Sir, I trust the House will accept the amendment
because it needs no further explanation.
Mr. Vice-President : Dr. Ambedkar, do you accept that amendment?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, I do.
During the debate, Shri T. T. Krishnamachari’s deliberate use of the word “function” instead
of terms like “duty” or “administer” is noteworthy. This choice underscores the ceremonial
nature of the President’s oath-taking. According to Article 60 of the present Constitution, the
President takes the oath “in the presence” of the Chief Justice, indicating that the Chief
Justice’s role — or that of the senior-most judge in their absence — is primarily ceremonial,
serving as a witness to the event rather than actively administering the oath.
Resignation Protocols: Revealing the Real Constitutional Chain of Command
The Constitution also distinguishes the offices of the President and the Chief Justice in
terms of to whom they must resign:
President’s resignation (Article 56(1)(a)):
“The President may, by writing under his hand addressed to the Vice-President, resign his
office.”
Although the Vice-President is constitutionally subordinate to the President, the President
addresses his resignation to the Vice-President because, under Article 65(1) and (2), the
Vice-President assumes the role of Acting President in circumstances such as resignation,
removal, death, absence, illness or any inability of the President to discharge the functions
of the office.
Supreme Court judge’s resignation (Article 124(2)):
“A Judge of the Supreme Court may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President,
resign his office.”
The President does not resign to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice (as a judge) must
resign to the President. This clearly places the President above the Chief Justice in
constitutional authority.
Why Only the Chief Justice or Senior-most Judge?
The Constitution deliberately names the Chief Justice of India (or the senior-most Supreme
Court judge in their absence) as the only authority in whose presence the President must
take the oath, excluding all other officials.
This requirement is not merely a formality but carries significant practical and constitutional
implications. Since the Chief Justice or the senior-most judge personally witnesses the
President taking the oath, their presence serves as an official and authoritative confirmation
that the oath has been duly administered in the proper manner.
In case any doubt or legal question arises later regarding whether the President has
actually taken the oath, or whether the oath was taken correctly as prescribed by the
Constitution, such a question would likely be brought before the Supreme Court. However,
since the Chief Justice (or senior-most judge) was a direct witness to the oath-taking
ceremony, any petition challenging the validity of the oath would likely be dismissed
promptly, possibly without the need for a full hearing.
This arrangement ensures the integrity of the oath-taking process and upholds the dignity of
the President’s office. It prevents frivolous or unnecessary litigation about the President’s
assumption of office, reinforcing that the President’s authority is granted only after fulfilling
this constitutional requirement under the watchful eye of the highest judicial authority.
Governor and High Court Judges: Reinforcing the Distinction
A similar constitutional pattern applies at the state level:
Governor’s oath (Article 159):
“The Governor of a State shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe an oath
or affirmation... in the presence of the Chief Justice of the High Court of the State or, in
his absence, the senior-most Judge of that Court available.”
High Court Judges’ oath (Article 219):
“Every Judge of a High Court shall, before he enters upon his office, make and subscribe
before the Governor of the State an oath or affirmation…”
So, again:
The Governor takes oath in the presence of the Chief Justice of the High Court
(ceremonial).
The High Court Judge takes oath before the Governor (administrative authority).
This reinforces that “in the presence of” refers to witnessing, not administering.
Hierarchy Reflected in the Oath Content: Different Roles, Different Responsibilities
Even the oath texts reveal differing scopes of responsibility and hierarchy.
President’s oath (Third Schedule):
“...that I will faithfully execute the office of President of India and will to the best of my ability
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law and that I will devote myself
to the service and well-being of the people of India.”
Chief Justice’s oath (as per Article 124(7) and Third Schedule):
“...that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law
established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will duly and
faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my
office without fear or favour... and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.”
The President pledges to defend the Constitution and serve the people — a national
leadership role and a constitutional guardian.
The Chief Justice pledges bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as
by law established,
This reflects their different constitutional mandates and status.
The Meaning of “In the Presence of”: Witness, Not Administrator
Legally, “in the presence of” implies witnessing, while “before” implies authority to
administer.
The Constitution uses these phrases deliberately:
President and Governor: oath “in the presence of” judiciary → no administrative
role.
Judges of SC/HC: oath “before” President/Governor → clear authority to
administer.
The Chief Justice’s role during the President’s oath is that of a constitutional witness, not
an oath administrator.
Although the distinction may appear semantic, it reflects the Constitution’s broader design
to preserve the separation of powers and clarify roles. Misrepresenting ceremonial
presence as administrative authority could lead to incorrect assumptions about judicial
power over the executive, potentially muddying institutional boundaries in times of
constitutional crisis.
Why “Administered” Is Constitutionally Inaccurate
It is a common — but constitutionally incorrect — practice to say that the Chief Justice
“administers” the President’s oath. That word does not appear in Article 60 or the Third
Schedule.
Using such language risks misrepresenting the constitutional framework and the distinct
roles of high offices. Precision in constitutional interpretation is not just semantic — it
protects the clarity of institutional boundaries.
Conclusion: Respecting Constitutional Language and Structure
The Indian Constitution clearly differentiates between witnessing an oath and
administering it. The Chief Justice of India does not administer the President’s oath
— the President takes the oath in his presence, as required by Article 60.
From the language of the Constitution to the hierarchy reflected in resignation
protocols and oath contents, every element affirms this structure.
Let us honor the Constitution by using its language accurately — not just for legal
compliance, but for preserving the dignity and balance of India’s democratic
institutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment