Substantial compliance with constitutional oath requirements upheld where minor linguistic error did not affect the oath's essential substance.

A constitutional oath is valid where its essential substance is complied with, even if a minor linguistic inaccuracy appears in one expression. The Supreme Court's reasoning was that the candidate had been duly nominated and had declared faith and allegiance to the Constitution and an undertaking to uphold India's sovereignty and integrity; the impugned Gujarati expression did not displace those core elements. Because the surrounding circumstances showed no real misapprehension about the office contested, the oath was held to be in substantial compliance with Article 173 and the Third Schedule, and disqualification on that ground was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the returned candidate's oath or affirmation, though containing a Gujarati expression translated as "Rajya Sabha", satisfied the constitutional requirement under Article 173 of the Constitution read with the Third Schedule for qualification to be chosen to the State Legislative Assembly.

Analysis: The essential requirements of the prescribed oath were that the candidate had been nominated and that he declared true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and undertook to uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. The use of the impugned Gujarati expression did not displace those essential contents. The Court applied the principle that where the purpose of a constitutional or statutory requirement is fulfilled, minor inaccuracy or deviation does not invalidate the proceeding. The objection that the form was not literally exact was rejected because the candidate's nomination, the surrounding circumstances, and the substance of the oath showed no real misapprehension as to the office for which he was contesting.

Conclusion: The oath was in substantial compliance with Article 173 and the Third Schedule, and the returned candidate was not disqualified on that ground.

Ratio Decidendi: A constitutional requirement is satisfied where the essential substance of the prescribed oath is complied with, and a minor linguistic inaccuracy that does not affect the real purpose of the oath does not invalidate the election.

---