- (1.) the Chief Justice Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) THE P.I.L. has been classified in three categories. (a) Public Interest Litigation, (b)Private Interest Litigation, and (c)Personal Interest Litigation This writ petition has been filed in the category of P.I.L. From the averments made in the writ petition itself, we are satisfied that this is not a P.I.L., but it is a S.F.L. We are treating it as a "Shameful Petition  for the reasons that by this writ petition, a young boy, who is yet to complete his Graduation as per the facts stated in the writ petition, tried to pollute the soul of the Constitution. The writ petitioner in his writ petition has grievance that Respondent No. 3, His Excellency, the Governor of Jharkhand, while taking (subscribing) the oath has violated Article 159 of the Constitution of India, because of the sole reason that in place of the word "God  and "Ishwar , he uttered the word "Allah  added three words "Ke Nam Par  in his oath. In the entire writ petition, the only plea which has been taken, is that under Article 159 of the Constitution, the format has been given, which accepts the oath in the name of "God  or in view of the authentic translation of the word "God  the oath could have been taken in the name of "Ishwar . According to the petitioner merely because of this reason, the oath taken by the Respondent No. 3 is absolutely illegal, being contrary to the provisions of Article 159 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the matter on 19th September, 2011 at length and thereafter, he was allowed further time to argue the matter.
(3.) TODAY , learned counsel for the petitioner formulated five points and substantially they according to him are the questions of law, (i) whether a thing, which is required to be done in a particular manner prescribed by law, is required to be done in such a manner only, (ii) whether any person can be allowed to take oath under Article 159 of the Constitution of India, otherwise than as provided under Article 159 of the Constitution and more particularly, in the manner, as prescribed under Article 102 of the Constitution of Pakistan, (iii) whether Respondent No. 3 could have been allowed to amend the format of oath, (iv) whether the words specified in Article 159 could have been changed and again the question has been posed, that (v) whether the oath taken in violation of Article 159, can be legalized ?;