My first amendment would raise a very important constitutional question namely whether the Ministers, as apart from Members, are required to be sincere or insincere. The House will be pleased to note that there are eight Forms of Declarations. With regard to Ministers of the Union, there are two Forms, I and II. The first relates to oath of office and the second relates to oath of secrecy. There are again two other forms relating to Ministers in the States, namely Forms V and VI, one relating to oath of office and the other relating to oath of secrecy. In all these cases the Ministers have to take the oath or make the affirmation to discharge their duties “solemnly” and not necessarily sincerely. One would think that the omission of the Word ‘sincerely‘ does not mean any departure from the existing practice. I would ask the honourable Members to consider the forms of oath to members of Parliament and Judges. The Declaration which has to be made by a number of Parliament is to be found in Form III. He has to make a declaration “Solemnly and sincerely” A Judge has to take an affirmation in form No Iv He has also to declare that he will do his duty “solemnly and sincerely.” Then, Sir, the oath to a member of a legislature of a state is given in Form No. VII. He has to declare that he would discharge his duties “solemnly and sincerely.” Lastly, the judges of the High Court under Form No. VIII, have to declare that they will discharge their duties “solemnly and sincerely.” There is a carefully chosen phraseology, one set for the members of Parliament as well as members of the State legislatures and Judges of the Federal Court and High Courts that they will discharge their duties “solemnly and sincerely“, but not so in the case of the Ministers both of the Union and of the States. I would like to know whether the omission in the case of the :Ministers is intentional or purely accidental. The careful manner in which the word “sincerely” is required in the case of the members of Parliament and :members of the State legislatures and Judges would show that this omission is deliberate and intentional. I would like to know from the members of the House whether it is their conception that so long as they are members of the Legislature, They are to discharge their duties solemnly as well as “sincerely,” but the moment he steps in the gaddi of a Ministry, he has to forsake sincerity. Is that the idea? If that is so, it is certainly in keeping with current ideas. In fact, Ministers are not required to be sincere, they are to be insincere. Insincerity in certain cases I know amounts to a virtue-. The famous Radha addressed Shri Krishna :
“Nipata Kapata tua Shyam”
“Shyam, you are insincere“.
That is the highest form of adoration. Shall we address our Ministers,
“Nipata Kapata tua Shyam“