
The petitioner had argued that elected representatives are required to take the oath either in the name of God or in the name of the Constitution, and that invoking specific deities was contrary to the prescribed oath and constitutional principles.
The petitioner had argued that elected representatives are required to take the oath either in the name of God or in the name of the Constitution, and that invoking specific deities was contrary to the prescribed oath and constitutional principles.

This article was originally published by an external source. Read the full story at the source.
Read Full Article at Source ↗