Source: https://lexquest.in/oath-taking-ceremony-a-mockery-of-the-constitution/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 07:48:42+00:00

Document:
Yes, undoubtedly, the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 will apply to this situation. But I would like to analyse this situation in light of a different fact.
Further, the Constitution states in the form of fundamental duties, that every citizen shall abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem. Any insult to the National Anthem will be considered to be a violation of Article 51A, that is, of the fundamental duties or in simple words, violation of the Constitution.
If the Chief Minister in his oath, pledges his true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, wouldn’t the act of walking out during the National Anthem, and thus violating the Constitution imply that he has not upheld his true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and hence has breached the oath taken by him while swearing in to the position of the Chief Minister?
There clearly is a violation of the oath by the Chief Minister in the present case (B.S. Yeddyurappa). Moreover, he has insulted the entire nation. So what happens next?
In Haridasan Palayil v. The Speaker, it was held that obvious intention behind an oath was to ensure that the person concerned makes a commitment to live by the Constitutional process. He has to owe allegiance to the Constitution. He has to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of the country. In case, the person chooses to take the oath, he has to swear in the name of ‘God’ and none else.
In K. Sukumaran v. Union of India, it was held that the breach of oath is not a disqualification constitutionally listed, and that the Court could not add to those disqualifications. Article 191 of the Indian Constitution discusses instances where the members of the Legislature can be disqualified from their membership. Since breach of oath is not one of the instances, disqualification will not be the result for the breach of an oath.
This was further reiterated in K. C. Chandy v. R. Balakrishna Pillai,wherein it was held that even though violation of an oath is not a disqualification specified in the Constitution, breach of oath was a breach of a fundamental code of conduct, however, it was also pointed out that breach of oath did not entail an automatic termination of the tenure but required an independent order by the appointing authority and that Court was not competent to issue such orders terminating the appointment of a Minister of a State, unless in two instances (1) When the Minister functions without the oath having been administered to him as provided in Article 164(3) and (2) when he continues in office, without being a member of the legislature, after six months.
In D.Satyanarayana v. N.T. Ramamrao and Ors. while concurring with the view expressed in K.C. Chandy v. R. Balakrishna Pillai, refused to issue a writ of Quo-Warranto for removal of the Chief Minister while repelling the argument that he has forfeited his right to continue in office for having breached the oath on account of various allegations of misuse of the authority. When a similar petition was filed before the Madras High Court in Ramachandran v. M.G. Ramachandran, with a similar prayer for issuance of a writ of Quo-Warranto on the ground that he has committed the breach of the office and secrecy, that court, while relying on the K.C. Chandy, dismissed the writ petition.
It can be understood that there is no action which can be taken by the Courts in circumstances where there is a breach of oath by a Minister/Chief Minister. The discretion of taking action lies within the political chain.
Neither me nor you, as a citizen of India, can hold Yeddyurappa liable for breaching the oath taken by him. Ideally, a complaint to the Governor should initiate an action against the Chief Minister. All we can do is possibly complain to the Governor, who may or may not take any action. Since Yedyurappa has resigned from his office, the Governor could refrain from taking any action at all.
The irony is that the Chief Ministerial Oath is taken by him for the people. And Judiciary is the platform where the people can raise their grievances. Yet, the Court is not allowed to play any role if there has been a breach of the Oath.
Simply put, why is it that the Courts aren’t allowed to intervene in such cases? Isn’t the Oath, which is made, made to the Public and not the Governor? Does it not then become the right of a person from within the Country to challenge the breach of such Oath? Will this act of national insult just be ignored, thereby paving way for more office-holders to do as they please? Are these officeholders immune to the Fundamental Duties? Is the oath taking ceremony a mockery of the Constitution, of the Public?
Stricter actions against breach of Oath need to be brought about and Judicial intervention should be allowed in all such circumstances to enable a citizen, to challenge such an act. Action should be taken against the person breaching the oath, whether or not he holds office after such breach.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.