Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 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 Art. 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-I 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 Janatlia 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 Art.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. 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 Art.188. 4. Sri Sajithkumar, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that respondents 6 to 16 are bound to take oath in Form VII B set out in the Third Schedule to the Constitution of India which provides the manner in which oath or affirmation is to be taken. Counsel submitted that the Constitution specifically provided the manner of taking oath and affirmation and prescribed the methodology and the phraseology to be adopted for taking oath or affirmation. Counsel submitted that the provision in Art. 193 of the Constitution of India would indicate that the Form has to be scrupulously complied with failing which penalty can be imposed. Counsel submitted that the petitioner has alerted the Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly and informed about the illegality committed by respondents 6 to 16 by taking oath in violation of the phraseology used in the form prescribed. Counsel submitted that respondents 6 to 16 should have taken oath by swearing in the name of God or in the alternative by solemn affirmation. Counsel submitted that the expression "God" used-in the form is not confined to Allah alone but takes in God in all its manifestation. Counsel submitted that the elected member is the representative of each and every voters of the constituency consisting of believers of various religions and that the elected member has to take oath representing the interest of all the members of the constituency. Counsel submitted that by taking oath in the name of Allah, elected candidates are not respecting the sentiments of voters of the constituency which they represent. Counsel placed considerable reliance on the Bench decision of this court in Haridasan Palayil v. The Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly (2003 (3) KLT 119) and submitted, as held by the Bench, that the perception of God has to be as that of the entire people and not personal. Counsel placed considerable reliance on the Bench decision of this court in Haridasan Palayil v. The Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly (2003 (3) KLT 119) and submitted, as held by the Bench, that the perception of God has to be as that of the entire people and not personal. What is envisaged is that the form intends to foster Unity in Diversity so as to preserve the integrity of India as a country and that is the apparent rationale and reason for the prescription of a "Form" in the Constitution. Counsel would submit that this Court opined that the legislator shall work under the fear of God as understood by all and by him as an individual. Counsel also, submitted that since Speaker has not taken any action inspite of repeated requests this court should exercise its constitutional power under Art.226 of the Constitution of India and give a declaration as was done in Haridasan Palayil's case, supra. 5. We heard Senior Government Pleader Sri Roy Chacko and Sri Murali, Purushothaman who represents Election Commission. They took a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable and submitted that the issue has to be initially raised before the Speaker. Counsel referred to the book, "Parliamentary Procedure" by Subhash C. Kashyap and submitted that members may take oath or affirmation in the form given in the Third Schedule to the Constitution. It is done individually and in accordance with the form specified in the IIIrd Schedule to the Constitution. Counsel submitted that the expression "God" used in Third Schedule refers to the God in which the person who takes the oath believes. Counsel submitted that provisions have been substantially complied with by respondents 6 to 16 and there is no violation of Art. 193 entailing penal consequences. 6. Counsel submitted that the expression "God" used in Third Schedule refers to the God in which the person who takes the oath believes. Counsel submitted that provisions have been substantially complied with by respondents 6 to 16 and there is no violation of Art. 193 entailing penal consequences. 6. The question, as we have already indicated, germane for consideration in this case is whether respondents 6 to 16 are disqualified to participate in proceedings in the Kerala Legislative Assembly since they have not taken oath in the name of God nor they have made any solemn affirmation in compliance with Art.188 and the Third Schedule attracting penalty under Article 193 of the Constitution of India and whether the oath taken by respondents 6 to 16 in the name of Allah would satisfy the requirement prescribed in Form VIIB of the Third Schedule to the Constitution read with Art. 188 of the Constitution of India. 7. Before we deal with the question we may at the outset extract the statutory form, in English language, given in the Third Schedule to the Constitution of India. Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a member of the Legislature of a State: "I, A.B., having been elected (or nominated) a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council) do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm 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 and that will faithfully discharge the duty upon which I am about to enter." Art. 188 of the Constitution states that every member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council of a State shall, before taking his seat, make and subscribe before the Governor, 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 210 of the Constitution states that notwithstanding anything in Part XVII, but subject to the provisions of Article 348, business in the Legislature of a State shall be transacted in the official language or languages of the State or in Hindi or English provided that the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly or Chairman of the Legislative Council, or person acting as such, as the case may be, may permit any member who cannot adequately express himself in any of the languages aforesaid to address the House in his mother-tongue. Members may make oath or affirmation in any of the 15 languages specified in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution. It is not imperative that elected candidate should take oath in the form prescribed in English but he can do it in his mother tongue. Respondents 6 to 16 have taken oath in their mother tongue, Malayalam. Language used in form VII B is to swear in the name of God. The word "God" is an English word-English Malayalam Dictionary by T. Ramalingam Pillai, defines the word which is a noun as "supreme being, the eternal infinite spirit, the creator; one worthy of worship; "malayalam" Allah is not a Malayalam word but an Arabic word. Muslim community when use their mother tongue use the word "Allah" for "God", though the word "Allah" is of Arabic origin. "Allah" as such is an Arabic word. Holy Quran 112: 1-4 says: "He is God the One and Only One; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He gives no birth, nor was He bom; And there is none like Him." Quran 2:255 says as follows: "God. There is no god but He, the Living, the Eternal, Slumber seizeth Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongeth whatsoever is in heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His Wilt? He knoweth that which is in front of them and that which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His Knowledge, save what He willeth. His Throne is wide as the heavens and earth, and He is never weary of reserving them. He is the High, the Mighty One." God is the unique Creator who has neither beginning nor end. He is the One and Only God. The basic creed of Islam is this simple formula: There is no god but God (La ilaha illa Allah). He is the High, the Mighty One." God is the unique Creator who has neither beginning nor end. He is the One and Only God. The basic creed of Islam is this simple formula: There is no god but God (La ilaha illa Allah). For Muslim community God is one. There is no associate or partners, that is the first principle of all Islam theology. The word "Quran" 42:11 says there is no god but God - La ilaha illaAllah and there is none like him. Laysaka mithlihi shay, it is also clear that arabic term, Allah denoting God is unique in many ways. It has no plural like "gods"; it has no gender, like "goddess"; nor does this word generate a visual image of any kind -Allah, He is God, the One and Only and there is none like Him." (Courtesy: This is Islam Edited by Dr. K.K. Usman 2nd edition), Further, the above author also states as follows: "La ilaha illa Allah Muhammadu Rasool Allah: There is no god, but God; Muhammad is God's Messenger," declares the shahada, which represents the essence of basic Islamic faith. The declaration is a composite of two articles. The first of these affirms. There is no god, but God," and the second pronounces, "Muhammad is the Messenger of God." The Quran reiterates the eternal truth about the Unity of God and calls upon His creatures to have unshakable and absolute faith in Him. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia says: “Allah is the Arabic term for "God" in Abrahamic regions, and is the main term for God in Islam. Arabic-speaking Muslims, Christians And Jews (including the Teimanim; several Mizrahi communities and some Sephardim) use "Allah" as the proper noun for "God" "Allah" is found in the Quran and in Arabic translations of the Bible. In the Quran, it refers to The Only God. Outside the Arab world, Allah is associated with Islam, and is used to refer specifically to the Islamic concept of God. The Islamic conception of God is a strict monotheism. It is the same as the Jewish conception of God. Islamic scholars often translate Allah directly into English as "God", especially Quran Alone Muslims. Other scholars feel that Allah should not be translated arguing that Allah is the term for "The God" in a glorified pronunciation. This is a significant issue when translating the Quran." 8. It is the same as the Jewish conception of God. Islamic scholars often translate Allah directly into English as "God", especially Quran Alone Muslims. Other scholars feel that Allah should not be translated arguing that Allah is the term for "The God" in a glorified pronunciation. This is a significant issue when translating the Quran." 8. We have to examine whether using the word "Allah" in the place of God would therefore be sufficient compliance with the form prescribed. The word God in Form VII B of the Third schedule is a relative expression so far as the person who takes oath. In that sense the word God used is not wide but in a restricted manner vis-a-vis the person who takes oath. When a member of the Muslim Community takes oath in Form VII B he takes oath in the name of Allah, the supreme God as far as the members of that community is concerned. The word God used in Form VII B is not in general term but takes in God in its restricted term particularly to the person who takes the oath. An elected member is expected to swear in the name of God in which he and not his electorate believes. Then only the purpose and object of Article 188 would be achieved. The word "God" in Form VII B takes in Allah also. Allah is a synonym for God. Similarly- a person who belongs to Christian community when taking oath as a member of the Legislative Assembly, in the name of God, swears in the name of Jesus Christ, whom he believes as his God. When a member of the Hindu community takes oath in the name of God, the God which he refers may - be Lord Ayyappa, Lord Siva, Lord Krishna and so on since God in Hinduism has several manifestations. We cannot accept the contention that an elected member takes oath not on his behalf but on behalf of the members of the constituency he represents. If the contention of the petitioner that a person who takes oath in the name of a particular God excludes all other Gods, is stretched to its logical conclusion, then a Hindu member will have to be presumed to take oath in the name of Allah or Jesus Christ also whom he does not worship or believe. If the contention of the petitioner that a person who takes oath in the name of a particular God excludes all other Gods, is stretched to its logical conclusion, then a Hindu member will have to be presumed to take oath in the name of Allah or Jesus Christ also whom he does not worship or believe. Same will be the position of persons following other religious faith. Oath taking, in our view, is purely personal and its purpose is to give sanctity to the pledge by which the oath-taker binds himself. What is important is not whether a person swears in the name of God or by way of solemn affirmation but whether he has affirmed that he would bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and whether he has affirmed that he would uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India and whether he has affirmed that he would faithfully discharge the duty of the office upon which he is about to enter. To insist that a person who takes oath in the name of God should take the oath not only in the name of God in whom he believes, but also in the names of the Gods in whom the members of the constituency believe is clearly illegal and unconstitutional. 9. Article 25 of the Constitution of India guarantees that every person in India shall have the freedom of conscience and shall have the right to free profession, practice and propagation of religion subject to the restrictions imposed by the State on the ground of public or order, morality and health and to the other provisions of the Constitution etc. Freedom of one to profess, practise and propagate religion cannot encroach upon freedom of similar freedom belonging to other persons. Every person has a fundamental right under the Constitution to entertain such religious belief as may be approved of by his judgment or conscience and to exhibit his beliefs and ideas in such overt manner as are enjoined or sanctioned by his religion and further to propagate his religious views. Arts. 25 and 26 guarantee not only the right to practise and propagate matters of faith or belief but also all those rituals and observances which are regarded as integral-part of a religion by the followers of a doctrine. Arts. 25 and 26 guarantee not only the right to practise and propagate matters of faith or belief but also all those rituals and observances which are regarded as integral-part of a religion by the followers of a doctrine. Religion is a matter of faith but is not necessarily theistic and there are well known religions in India like Buddhism and Jainism which do not believe in God. Religion has its outward expression in acts as well. 10. In our view, when a person belonging to Muslim community takes oath in the name of Allah he is not violating any constitutional provisions. Constitution permits to take oath in the name of God. Muslims who believe in Allah have therefore to take oath in the name of God in whom they believe. Otherwise he may not be taking oath as specified in the Third Schedule to the Constitution. India is a secular country consisting of various religious faith. Religious teachings would help the people to serve the country in a better way. It is in the above background that we have to examine whether the oath taken by respondents 6 to 16 in the name of Allah is legal or not. By taking oath in the name of Allah they re-affirm their faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India. We may in this connection strike a different note with regard to the reasoning adopted in Haridasan Palayil's case, supra. In the above case a Bench of this court held that the perception of God has to be as that of the entire people and not personal. The court further held: "The society at large and not merely the "Assembly" must get the confidence that the legislator shall work under the fear of God as understood by a and not by him as an individual. This is essential to ensure that he represents everyone, irrespective of the caste or creed, faith or religion, it is meant to help in maintaining national harmony. It is intended to foster Unity in Diversity so as to preserve so as to preserve the integrity of India as a country. This is essential to ensure that he represents everyone, irrespective of the caste or creed, faith or religion, it is meant to help in maintaining national harmony. It is intended to foster Unity in Diversity so as to preserve so as to preserve the integrity of India as a country. That is the apparent rationale and reason for the prescription of a Form in the Constitution." We reiterate that when a person takes oath as per Form VII B of the Third Schedule to the Constitution it is purely personal and not on behalf of the voters of the constituency. By the sacrosanct act of oath or affirmation, he is binding himself (and not his electorate) against any breach of the pledge which he has undertaken. The oath which is thus personal as-against the oath-taker cannot and is not expected to bind other believers in God, -agnostics and atheists in the constituency which the oath taker represents and he alone incurs the consequences of any breach. We are therefore unable to agree with the reasoning that the prescription of God that we get in the form is general and not personal because the constituency consists of not only believers in God, but also atheists. 11. Apex Court in Viri Ram Sutaria v. Nathalal Premji Bhanvadia (AIR 1970 SC 765) while dealing with the provisions of Art.173 (a) Schedule 3 Form 7A held that the real purpose of the provision whether statutory or constitutional has to be considered to find out whether notwithstanding the apparently mandatory form of the words used any deviation there from is to be struck down. The court also held: "Non compliance will not necessarily render a proceeding invalid if by considering its nature, its design and the consequences which follow from its non-observance one is not led to the conclusion that the legislature or the Constitution makers intended that there should be no departure from the strict words used." That was a case where the returned candidate had filed three nomination papers with three different proposes for election to fill a seat in the Vidhan Sabha for Gujarat State. Nomination paper of the returned candidate contained a form of oath or affirmation which was both in Gujarati as well as in English. Nomination paper of the returned candidate contained a form of oath or affirmation which was both in Gujarati as well as in English. The English form verbatim Form No VII as set out in the Third Schedule to the Constitution and the Gujarati form purported to set out the Gujarati translation of the form of oath or affirnation. It was noticed that the relevant difference for the purpose of the case was that the words "Legislative assembly in the form in English were translated in Gujarati form as, "Rajya Sabha". A contention was raised with regard to the use of that word. The apex court noticed that in common parlance the expression "Rajya Sabha" has come to mean the Legislative Council of the State while the State Legislative assembly is generally known as Rajya Vidhan Sabha. The court felt that in the absence of any authoritative translation of the expression "State Legislative Assembly" in Gujarati the court cannot guide themselves by the popular rendering of the expression. The court held: "The real purpose of the oath is that the person concerned must give an undertaking to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India." The court noticed that Art.173(a) of the Constitution contained the following essential requirements: (i) the person taking the oath or making the affirmation must have been nominated as a candidate to fill a seat in the Legislative assembly or Legislative Council, (ii) he will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and (iii) he will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. The court therefore held that non compliance will not necessarily render a proceeding invalid if by considering its nature, its design and the consequences which follow from its non observance one is not led to the conclusion that the legislature or the Constitution makers intended that there should be no departure from the strict words used. Thus, substantial compliance with the requirements of the form of oath was considered sufficient. Thus, substantial compliance with the requirements of the form of oath was considered sufficient. We may also refer to the decision of the Madras High Court in P.N. Vallarasu v. M.G. Ramachandran (83 E.L.R 378) wherein the court followed the decision of the apex court in V.R. Suratia v. N.P. Bhanvadia (AIR 1970 SC 765) and took the view that a careful reading of the Article read with the notification seems to suggest that when the factum of oath is not in issue, the credibility of the person speaking about the oath should be beyond any dispute. We may also refer to another judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Shabbir v. State (ILR 1964 (1) All.620) wherein it was contended that the oath made and subscribed was not in the correct form. It was noticed that the words "I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India" were omitted. The court held that the oath made and subscribed was complete, so far as the discharge of his duties as a Judge was concerned and that it cannot be said that he had not entered upon his office. 12. Petitioner in this case has no case that respondents 6 to 16 are not professing their solemn religion or that they have no faith in Allah. Petitioner insists that respondents 6 to 16 should have taken oath riot in the, name of Allah but in the name of God, which according -to him takes in not only Allah but God of different manifestations, a view we find it difficult to subscribe. 13. In the above mentioned circumstances, we hold that respondents 6 to 16 have not committed any illegality in taking oath in, the name of Allah and have not violated the statutory Form VII B of Schedule III; nor violated Art.188 of the Constitution of India. Consequently imposition of penalty under Art.193 of the Constitution does not arise. We therefore find no merit in the Writ Petition and the same would stand dismissed.