OATH OF BRUTUS

OATH OF BRUTUS

Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” demonised the name Brutus. The shock and disbelief with which the falling Caesar calls his good friend – “Et tu Brutus” or “you too Brutus” leaves a lasting impression on the reader’s mind. The term “Et tu” has become synonymous with any betrayal by a trusted friend. The actions of this Brutus have become equivalent for betrayal that the deeds of another Brutus, his ancestor has been totally effaced from memory.

For law and lawyers, Lucius Junius Brutus is more important that the Shakespearian villain, Marcus Junius Brutus. He has achieved something more than being an ancestor of a famous assassin. He was one of the founders of the Roman Republic. He should be remembered today because his actions as a consul and judge.

Five hundred years before the birth of Christ, Rome was a monarchy. The seventh in line of the Tarquin Royal family was Licius Superbus. His son had a unique name. He was Sextus Tarquinius. He lived his life more towards his first name rather maintaining his family one. He ravished Lucretia by forcing himself on her, at the pain of death and violated her person. Unable to bear dishonour, Lucretia informed her father and Lucius Junius Brutus of the act of rape. After completing her narration, she stabbed herself to death.

Brutus, unlike his descendent did not turn the knife in the wound but pulled it out and vowed that he will not rest until Rome becomes a Republic. With this vow, he set upon his king and his family, drove them out of the Kingdom and established the Roman republic. Even before interning the body of Lucretia, Brutus called upon his fellow citizens to decide if Rome should be a monarchy or republic. The popular will was republic and the monarch and his family were banished from Rome for their life.

Lucius Junius Brutus was then appointed as the first consul of Rome along with Collatinus, Lucretia’s husband. The practice of administration of a state through an office of Consul continued for a very long time. This post was the highest civilian post available in the Roman Republic. To avoid anyone staking a claim to the post, two consuls were elected every year. They were to rule the Republic until the election of the next one. It was so powerful and honorable that the French had created a post-called consul in their First Republic.

Immediately after assuming his office, Lucius Junius Brutus took an oath. A tradition that continues till date. Every dignitary of a high office assumes his office only after an oath. His oath was never to allow a man to become a King of Rome. The oath also had a penal clause. It declared that if any one attempted to restore monarchy or become the king, he would be put to death forthwith. Following their consul, his fellow citizens to take a similar oath.

Almost all the written constitutions of the world insist on an oath. It is considered sacrosanct.

The Constitution of India too insists upon a minister to take an oath of office under Article 164 (3). Likewise, every judge of a high court should take an oath as per Article 219. There are similar provisions with respect to the other posts too. While interpreting the idea behind this ceremony of taking an oath, a full bench of Kerala High court held in K.C. Chandy v. R. Balakrishna, AIR 1986 Kerala 116 that

“...no Minister could enter upon his office unless the Governor administers to him the oaths of office and of secrecy. The constitutional requirement of an oath before assumption of office could not thus be treated merely as 'an additional moral obligation' (as stated by Willoughby in Vol. III, II Edn. of 'The Constitutional Law of the United States) without any legal consequences whatsoever. The oath of office insisted upon under the Constitution is the prescription of a fundamental code of conduct in the discharge of the duties of these high offices. The oath binds the person throughout his tenure in that office, and he extricates himself from the bonds of the oath only when he frees himself from the office he holds. Breach of this fundamental conduct of good behaviour may result in the deprivation of the very office he holds. When posts are held, not at the pleasure of the President or the Governor, but during 'good behaviour' breach of the oaths of office and of secrecy may attract the impeachment clauses and when posts are held at the pleasure of the President or the Governor, the termination; at their will, of the tenure may be the possible outcome of such breach”.

Having said so, the bench went on to hold the absence of an oath is a ground for quo warranto but the breach of the oath is not subject to judicial review. Subsequently, several courts have been troubled with litigants who wanted to the oath of office to be adhered to by the person who took it. Consistently, the courts have held it is not justiciable and left it to the good spirit of their appointing authorities, the President and the Governor to take remedial actions for the breach.

Brutus is not to be remembered merely for his oath of abolishing monarchy. It is for an incident followed the taking of an oath.

Within a year of creation of the republic, a coup was attempted. The principal actors behind that coup were the two sons of Brutus; Titus and Valerius. They were arrested for treason and brought before Brutus and Collatinus as the head of the administration.

Having heard the accusers, Brutus turned to his sons, called each of them, and asked, thrice, as to what they have to say for the charge and the proof offered. They did not reply. He did not reserve judgement. He found them guilty.

While a few of those present in court felt banishment would be the right sentence, Brutus did not forget his oath. He declared them to be put to death immediately. The great historian, Plutarch writes

“The tutors immediately laid bold on the youths, stripped them of their garments, and, having tied their hands behind them, flogged them severe h with their rods. And though others turned their eye aside, unable to endure the spectacle, yet it is said that Brutus neither looked another way, nor suffered pity in the least to smooth his stern and angry countenance ; regarding his sons as they suffered with a threatening aspect, till they were extended on the ground, and their heads cut off with the axe.”

Oh, what a man, what a judge and what a sense of adherence to an oath.

Did not Marshall, C.J., in Marbury vs. Madison 5 Cranch 137 (1803) write

“Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!”

Would you not agree it is indeed an honour if one were to be addressed Et tu Lucius Brutus?