Article 219

Article 219 of the Constitution of India lays down the constitutional requirement that every judge of a High Court must take an oath or affirmation before entering upon their office. This provision serves as a solemn pledge by the judges to uphold the Constitution, the rule of law, and the principles of justice. It symbolises both the legal and moral commitment of the judiciary towards impartiality, integrity, and fidelity to constitutional ideals.

Constitutional Framework and Context

Article 219 forms part of Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution, which deals with the organisation and powers of the High Courts in the States. It complements Articles 217 to 222, which collectively govern the appointment, tenure, conditions of service, and conduct of High Court judges.
The article provides that every person appointed as a judge of a High Court shall, before entering upon office, make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation in the presence of the Governor of the State or some person appointed by the Governor for that purpose. This ensures that the judicial office is assumed only after a formal and constitutional acknowledgment of the duties and responsibilities entrusted to it.

Administration and Form of the Oath

The form of the oath or affirmation is prescribed in the Third Schedule to the Constitution of India. The wording of the oath is uniform across all High Courts and reads as follows:

“I, [name], having been appointed Chief Justice (or a Judge) of the High Court at [name of High Court], 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, that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgment perform the duties of my office without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws.”

The Governor’s role in administering the oath is of a formal and ceremonial nature, representing the executive authority of the state. However, it does not in any way subordinate the judiciary to the executive; rather, it reflects the constitutional cooperation between the organs of government.

Significance and Purpose of the Oath

The judicial oath under Article 219 carries deep constitutional and ethical significance. Its importance can be understood under the following aspects:

• Constitutional Commitment: The oath binds judges to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of India. It reinforces their duty to interpret and apply laws consistent with constitutional principles.
• Judicial Independence: By taking the oath, judges affirm their impartiality and pledge to act free from executive or legislative influence, upholding the doctrine of separation of powers.
• Public Accountability: The oath serves as a moral and legal undertaking that strengthens public confidence in the judiciary. It assures citizens that judges are committed to fairness and justice.
• Ethical Integrity: The promise to act “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will” captures the ethical foundation of judicial conduct, ensuring neutrality and integrity in every judicial function.

Historical Background

The practice of requiring an oath from judicial officers has its origins in British constitutional tradition, where judges were required to swear allegiance to the Crown and to dispense justice according to law and conscience. The Indian framers adapted this practice, substituting allegiance to the monarch with allegiance to the Constitution of India, thereby making the oath a symbol of sovereignty and democratic accountability.

Judicial Interpretation and Relevance

Indian courts have frequently emphasised the binding nature and constitutional importance of the oath taken by judges. The oath not only signifies entry into office but also serves as a constant reminder of the duties associated with judicial responsibility.
In K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991), the Supreme Court observed that the oath taken by judges under Article 219 is not merely ceremonial but a constitutional guarantee of judicial integrity. It reflects a judge’s duty to maintain honesty, impartiality, and faithfulness to the Constitution.
In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2016), the Court reaffirmed that judicial independence is central to the oath and that every judge, upon taking office, is constitutionally obligated to uphold that independence in letter and spirit.

Connection with Related Constitutional Provisions

Article 219 is closely linked with other constitutional provisions governing the judiciary:

• Article 217: Provides for the appointment and conditions of service of High Court judges.
• Article 218: Applies provisions of Article 124(4) and (5) to High Courts, relating to removal and service conditions.
• Article 220: Restricts post-retirement practice of High Court judges to ensure impartiality.
• Article 221: Relates to the salaries and allowances of judges.
• Article 124(6): Contains a similar provision for judges of the Supreme Court, requiring them to take an oath before assuming office.

Together, these Articles create a coherent constitutional framework for ensuring judicial responsibility, independence, and accountability.

Implications of Breach of Oath

Although there is no direct punitive provision for breach of the oath, a serious violation of its terms — such as proven misbehaviour or incapacity — can lead to removal through impeachment under Article 124(4), read with Article 218. A breach may also attract public censure and damage judicial credibility.
The oath is therefore not merely a formality but a binding constitutional promise, enforceable through the mechanisms of judicial accountability and parliamentary oversight.

Ethical and Moral Dimensions

The oath under Article 219 embodies the ethical code of judicial conduct. It commits every judge to uphold constitutional morality, impartiality, and probity in public life. By swearing allegiance to the Constitution rather than to any government or individual, judges affirm the principle that justice in India emanates from law and conscience, not political authority.
It also reinforces the public’s trust in the judiciary as an independent and incorruptible institution. The moral weight of the oath ensures that judges remain guided by constitutional duty and not personal bias or external influence.

Continuity and Amendment

Since its inception in 1950, Article 219 has remained unchanged. Its enduring relevance reflects the framers’ foresight in embedding ethical and constitutional obligations at the very heart of the judicial office. Despite numerous amendments affecting other provisions of the judiciary, the unaltered status of Article 219 signifies the permanence of its moral and constitutional value.

Significance in Modern Judicial Practice

In contemporary India, where the judiciary plays a critical role in interpreting constitutional boundaries and protecting individual rights, the oath under Article 219 continues to hold immense relevance. It acts as a moral compass for judges, reminding them of their constitutional responsibilities and their role as guardians of justice.
The oath also serves as a symbol of judicial accountability, assuring citizens that those who dispense justice have pledged their loyalty solely to the Constitution and the law. This formal affirmation strengthens the integrity and credibility of India’s democratic framework.