The Kerala High Court invalidated the oath taken by 20 Thiruvananthapuram Corporation councillors, ruling that the swearing-in violated legal procedure. The Court directed them to retake the oath within four weeks as per statutory requirements following a petition challenging the ceremony.
The Kerala High Court has invalidated the oath taken by 20 councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, holding that the swearing-in ceremony was conducted in violation of the prescribed legal procedure. The Court directed the councillors to take the oath again in accordance with the statutory requirements within four weeks. Until the fresh oath is administered, questions have been raised over their participation in the functioning of the Corporation.
The judgment came on a petition filed by CPM councillor S P Deepak, who challenged the validity of the oath taken by the councillors and sought directions requiring them to complete the swearing-in process legally.
The controversy began when 20 councillors took their oath of office using references to deities, organisations and martyrs instead of following the form prescribed under the Kerala Municipality Act.
The councillors whose oath was declared invalid include Vishnumohan (Pangode), Asha Nath (Karumam), Harikumar (Fort), Deepa S Nair (Perunthanni), Sukanya (Sreekandeswaram), Jaya Rajeev (Kadakampally), Sunil (Attipra), Advocate Mini (Aakkulam), Vayalkkara Ratheesh (Poongulam), Vinod (Cheruvakkal), Gopa Kumar (Thiruvallom), Sudhi S S (Attukal), V Giri (Kamaleswaram), Saritha P (Manacaud), Udayan (Mannanthala), Sugathan (Vazhottukonam), Surya (Valiyasala), Sreedevi (Ponnumangalam), Pappanamcode Saji (Melamkode) and Beena (Nedungad).
According to the petition, several councillors took oath in the names of various religious figures, deities and other personalities.
Petitioner S P Deepak argued that the oath-taking process violated Section 143 of the Kerala Municipality Act. The provision requires elected municipal representatives to take a formal oath or affirmation before assuming office.
The plea contended that the law permits an oath or affirmation in the name of God but does not allow modifications by adding references to specific deities, organisations or individuals. The petitioner therefore sought directions that the councillors be required to take a valid oath before participating in Corporation proceedings.
He also questioned the validity of their participation in the mayoral election, arguing that they had exercised voting rights despite allegedly not completing a valid oath-taking process.
The issue particularly arose after some BJP councillors took their oath in the names of figures and deities including Lord Ayyappa, Kavilamma, Attukalamma, Bharatamba, Sree Padmanabhan, Gurudevan and martyrs. The incident led to objections from opposition councillors, with Deepak raising concerns regarding compliance with the legal procedure immediately after the oath ceremony.
However, Thiruvananthapuram District Collector Anukumari reportedly observed that objections should have been raised at the time the oath was administered. The BJP members responded by clapping after taking the oath.
The Collector stated that after taking the oath, signing the required forms and attending the Corporation meeting, the councillors had become members. She also indicated that any further challenge could be pursued before the appropriate forum. Following this, Deepak approached the Kerala High Court.
During the hearing, the High Court examined whether the language used by the councillors during the oath ceremony was legally permissible. The Court noted that the concept of God can vary among individuals and communities.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Stays Election Petition Proceedings in Karnataka Caste Claim Case
The Bench observed that some people may consider living persons, spiritual leaders or gurus as objects of reverence, raising questions about how the legal requirement of an oath should be interpreted.
The Court questioned whether an oath taken in the name of different gods, individuals or other entities could satisfy the statutory requirement. The Court observed that the issue required detailed consideration.
After hearing the arguments from both sides, the High Court concluded that the oath taken by the 20 councillors was not in accordance with the prescribed legal format. The Court declared the oath invalid and directed the councillors to take a fresh oath following the procedure established under law. The councillors have been given four weeks to complete the fresh swearing-in process.
The ruling highlights the importance of following statutory procedures while elected representatives assume public office. An oath of office is not merely a ceremonial act but a legal requirement that enables elected representatives to formally exercise their duties. The judgment also raises questions about the balance between personal expressions of faith and compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements governing public offices.