The Kerala High Court has held that the oath taken by 20 councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, who invoked the names of deities, martyrs, political movements, and other figures while assuming office, was invalid. The court directed the councillors to take the oath again within four weeks.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan directed the State Election Commission to make arrangements for a fresh swearing-in ceremony for the councillors. The court, however, refused to cancel their election, observing that the issue was with the manner in which the oath was taken and not with the election results.
The case was considered on a petition filed by Left Democratic Front (LDF) council party leader SP Deepak. He argued that elected representatives can either take oath in the name of god or make a solemn affirmation while assuming office, but several councillors had deviated from the prescribed format.
According to the petition, some of the councillors took oath invoking names such as Gurudeva, Udayannoor Devi, Kavilamma, Bhagavathi, Sree Padmanabha Swamy, Bharathamba, Bharat Mata, Attukal Amma, Ayyappa, and other deities. The petitioner also contended that the oath is a pledge connected to the Constitution and public office, and should not be linked to political organisations, leaders, or martyrs.
After examining the issue, the court found that the form of oath used by the 20 councillors did not match the options permitted under the law, and declared the oath-taking process invalid.
The court clarified that the decisions and proceedings involving these councillors until the date of the judgment would remain protected and would not be affected by the finding on the oath issue.
The judgment also dealt with a separate petition involving a member of the Vadakkenchery Grama Panchayat, who had taken oath in the name of former Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy.
The court observed that the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act too allows only two forms of oath — swearing in the name of god or making a solemn affirmation. It said that using any other form goes against the prescribed procedure.
However, the court also pointed out that unlike the provisions governing municipal councillors, there is no similar protection available for panchayat members. Therefore, the actions carried out by the Vadakkanchery panchayat members until the date of the judgment were held to be invalid. The member, however, was given time to take a fresh oath and continue in office after completing the required formalities.
