ORDER : (Prasanna B. Varale, CJ.) Petitioner claiming to be a public spirited citizen, is invoking the PIL jurisdiction of Writ Court with the following plural prayers: "(a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Appropriate Order, Declaring the Oath taken by the 9 Ministers Of State And 37 Member Of Legislative Assembly, Vide Annexures-C, C1, Who Have Not taken Oath as Per the Prescribed Format Under the Schedule Iii Of the Constitution Of India, As Unconstitutional and Illegal, In the Interest Of Justice and Equity. (B) Issue a Writ Of Mandamus, Directing the Respondent - Member Of Legislative Assembly And Ministers Of State to Pay Penalty Fine As Prescribed Under Article 193 Of the Constitution of India, For Each Day Of Attending Of Office/assembly Under Oath taken Incorrectly, In the Interest Of Justice And Equity. (C) Issue a Writ Of Mandamus, Any Other Appropriate Writ Or Order Directing The Respondents to Retake their Oath By Adhering to the Prescribed Format For Taking the Oath and Affirmation of office, As Per Article 188 And Schedule III Of the Indian Constitution, In the Interest Of Justice and Equity. (D) Issue a Writ Of Mandamus, Directing the 3rd Respondent to Hold An Enquiry In Respect of the Incorrect Oaths taken by the Respondent Member of Legislative Assembly and Ministers of State, In the Interest of Justice and Equity." 2. The thrust of submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is as to non-compliance of the requirement of the format of oath taking by the respondents. He argues that the respondents, some of whom took oath as Ministers, one of them took oath as the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and others took oath as the Members of Legislative Assembly, have committed the breach of constitutional imperative enacted in Article 188 read with Schedule III of the Constitution of India, and therefore, all they should be disqualified. He also submits that the private respondents should be asked 'to pay penalty fine as prescribed under Article 193 of the Constitution of India, for each day of attending of office/assembly..' sic 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and having perused the papers, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the oath has been taken in substantial compliance of the format. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and having perused the papers, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the oath has been taken in substantial compliance of the format. It is not uncommon in the Indian society that the people and their elected representatives do show due deference to the sages, social reformers and tall figures who have contributed for the upliftment of society, more particularly, of downtrodden sections. At times, tall figures like Bhagawan Buddha (563 BCE - 483 BCE) Jagajyothi Basaveshwara (1131-1196), Dr.B.R.Ambedkar (1891-1956), etc., are held as daivaansha-sambhootaas i.e., divine incarnates which the English word 'God' employed in the constitutional formats in Third Schedule, does nearly denote the same. It is said in Kannada 'devanobba, naama halavu' nearly meaning that: God is one, though he is called by multiple names. This is in line with what Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad states: "ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti" which literally means that, truth is one and the wise call him with various nomenclatures. It is significant to note that, the format permits God neutral oath taking. 4. Mr. D.X.Junkin, A.M. in his The Oath A Divine Ordinance And An Element Of The Social Constitution (New York: Wiley and Putnam, 161 Broadway 1845) writes something interesting about oath: "...we think the inference is inevitable that man could not have originated the ordinance of oath... it is obvious that the oath must be ascribed to a Divine Origin. From the fact that it was used in the earliest ages, even in patriarchal society, we cannot but infer that the oath is one of the earliest social institutions; and that it was probably given to man so soon as he needed such an ordinance i.e., just after the fall and so soon as our world became a world of lies... it is an ordinance of Divine appointment." What a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Madhu Parumala v. Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly, (2006) 7 KL CK 0084 at paragraph 8 has observed needs to be profitably reproduced: "8. The word God used in Form VIIB 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. The word God used in Form VIIB 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. ... 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... 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... 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 Gods in whom the members of the constituency believe is clearly illegal and unconstitutional." 5. It is also significant to note that oath can be taken in the name of God or by solemn affirmation without taking any name of God. This becomes evident by a sheer look at all the formats enlisted in the Third Schedule to the Constitution of India which employs the expression "swear in the name of God" and alternatively other expression "solemnly affirm". There have been instances wherein the oath is taken by uttering both the expressions, although going by logic, they are mutually exclusive. However that does not pollute the sanctity attached to the oath. What one has to see is the substance of prescription and not just the format. This is not to subsidize the sanctity attached to the forms, especially those which the Constitution itself prescribes. Civilized jurisdictions have moved from form to substance, is true; even then, in technical matters like this, forms have their own value & sanctity and such form is prescribed keeping the same in mind. This is not to subsidize the sanctity attached to the forms, especially those which the Constitution itself prescribes. Civilized jurisdictions have moved from form to substance, is true; even then, in technical matters like this, forms have their own value & sanctity and such form is prescribed keeping the same in mind. Aristotle discusses this aspect of the matter in his Metaphysics, wherein he argues that form is what unifies some matter into a single object, the compound of the two: he appeals to it in his De Anima, by treating soul and body as a special case of form and matter. It is not impertinent to state here that Article 210 provides for taking oath in mother tongue or in any one of the 22 languages enlisted in Schedule VIII to the Constitution. Despite vociferous submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we are not convinced that the oath subscribed by the private respondents does not comply with the requirement of the prescribed formats. We hasten to caution that the failure to subscribe to the oath in substance would give scope for avoidable litigations of the kind. More is not necessary to specify. In the above circumstances, this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been reluctantly made easy.