Constitution of India
Article 159: Oath or affirmation by the Governor
Part VI — The States (Chapter II — The State Executive)
Article 159 (no sub-divisions — single article)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Governor (or any person discharging the Governor's functions) must, before entering office, make and subscribe an oath or affirmation in the presence of the Chief Justice of the High Court (or the senior-most available Judge) pledging to: 1. Faithfully execute the office of Governor. 2. Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and the law. 3. Devote himself/herself to the service and well-being of the people of the State. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. The oath is a mandatory pre-condition — no person can discharge gubernatorial functions without it. 2. It binds the Governor to act within constitutional limits, not as a political agent. 3. The option to 'swear in the name of God' OR 'solemnly affirm' respects freedom of belief. 4. Applies equally to acting/interim Governors under Article 160. 5. Judicial presence (Chief Justice of HC) underscores legal accountability, unlike the original draft which required oath before the State Legislature. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Constitutional Trust — the Governor's oath establishes the office as one of constitutional trust, restricting arbitrary or partisan action (affirmed in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, 1974 and B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2001).
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. British Parliamentary Tradition — Oath of allegiance sworn by constitutional heads before assuming office. Original provision: The Crown's representatives (Governors) took an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign. What India kept: The format of a formal oath before assuming executive office, but loyalty is pledged to the Constitution, not a monarch. 2. Article 60, Indian Constitution (President's Oath) — Article 159 was deliberately modelled on it. Original provision: The President swears before the CJI to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. What India kept: Near-identical wording, substituting 'Chief Justice of India / Supreme Court' with 'Chief Justice of the High Court' and 'India' with 'the State'. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Oath before the Chief Justice of High Court (not Legislature) — Ensures judicial solemnity and mirrors the President's oath before the CJI; the original draft required oath before members of the State Legislature, but this was amended in the Constituent Assembly. 2. Option to 'swear in the name of God' or 'solemnly affirm' — Respects atheists and persons of diverse faiths in a secular republic. 3. Pledge to 'service and well-being of the people of the State' — A uniquely Indian addition emphasizing the Governor as a public servant, not a colonial representative of the Crown.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 31st May 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 136 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Shri T.T. Krishnamachari (Drafting Committee) — Proposed that the Governor take oath before the Chief Justice of the High Court instead of members of the State Legislature, to mirror Draft Article 49 (President's oath under Article 60). 2. Shri H.V. Kamath — Proposed adding 'swear in the name of God' as an option alongside 'solemnly affirm', consistent with the amendment already accepted for the President's oath. 3. Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru (United Provinces) — Sought clarification that the oath format preserves an alternative for those who do not wish to swear in the name of God (i.e., atheists should not be compelled). 4. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Accepted both amendments moved by Krishnamachari and Kamath without opposition. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Oath before Legislature vs. Chief Justice — The original draft required the oath before 'members of the Legislature of the State'; Krishnamachari's amendment to shift it to the Chief Justice of the HC was accepted without debate. 2. No other major disagreements were recorded. FINAL OUTCOME: Both amendments (oath before HC Chief Justice; 'swear in the name of God' option) were accepted; Draft Article 136, as amended, was adopted on 31st May 1949. AMBEDKAR'S KEY STATEMENT: Dr. Ambedkar simply stated: 'Sir, I accept the amendment moved by Shri T.T. Krishnamachari and also the one moved by my friend Mr. Kamath.' — indicating his full endorsement of both changes.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) — The SC held that the Governor, as a constitutional head, must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers; the oath to uphold the Constitution restricts arbitrary or partisan action. 2. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) — The SC discussed constitutional duties of the Governor, reaffirming that the Governor is bound by the oath; President's satisfaction under Art. 356 is subjective but subject to limited judicial review. 3. B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001) — Five-judge Constitution Bench held that the Governor is sworn to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws' (Art. 159), and therefore cannot appoint a disqualified person as Chief Minister; such appointment is void and subject to quo warranto. 4. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) — The SC reiterated that the Governor's oath binds him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution; the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly was held unconstitutional as it was based on extraneous and irrelevant grounds. NOTABLE OBSERVATIONS: 1. Justice Arijit Pasayat in Rameshwar Prasad (2006) — Observed that the Governor is a 'constitutional sentinel' whose oath of office binds him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and devote himself to the well-being of the people. 2. Justice S.P. Bharucha in B.R. Kapur (2001) — Stated that the Constitution prevails over the will of the majority party; the Governor, being sworn under Art. 159, cannot do anything contrary to the Constitution. SCHOLARS & COMMISSIONS: 1. Sarkaria Commission (1988) — Emphasized that Governors must uphold constitutional values and act impartially, as reflected in their oath under Article 159. 2. Punchhi Commission (2010) — Recommended measures to ensure Governors adhere to their constitutional duties as sworn in the oath of office. 3. D.D. Basu — Noted that the Governor's oath is not merely ceremonial but a constitutional safeguard ensuring accountability to the Constitution and the people. AMENDMENT STATUS: Article 159 has NOT been amended since its adoption on 26 January 1950. The text remains in its original form as adopted by the Constituent Assembly.