Kerala HC invalidates local body oaths taken in names other than 'God' or solemn affirmation

The Kerala High Court has ruled that elected local body representatives must take oath strictly in the manner prescribed under law, declaring invalid the oaths of several BJP councillors in the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation who invoked names other than “God” or went beyond a solemn affirmation.

In a judgment delivered by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, the court held that the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act permit elected members to take oath only “in the name of God” or by making a solemn affirmation.

The court said the statutory format does not allow the inclusion of specific deities, “Bharathamba” (Mother India), “Bharata Mata”, political martyrs, organisations or individuals.

The case arose after 20 councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation took oath in the names of various Hindu deities, Bharathamba, Bharata Mata, Gurudeva and martyrs associated with their political movement.

In a separate petition, a member of the Vadakkencherry grama panchayat in Palakkad district took oath “by God's blessing in the name of Oommen Chandy”.

The court observed that taking oath is a solemn constitutional and statutory obligation through which elected representatives pledge to uphold the Constitution, follow the rule of law and serve the public honestly.

Justice Kunhikrishnan clarified that while individuals are free to worship any deity or follow any faith, the wording of the oath prescribed by law cannot be altered.

“When the statute prescribes a particular manner in which an oath is to be taken, the expansion of ‘God’ is not permissible,” the court held.

At the same time, the court said the validity of the elections of the representatives concerned would not be affected by the defective oath-taking process.

The court directed authorities to facilitate fresh oath-taking ceremonies for the affected councillors and the panchayat member within four weeks in accordance with the prescribed legal format.

It also ruled that no penalties should be imposed, noting that the representatives acted under a bona fide belief that the form of oath they adopted was legally valid.

For the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation councillors, the court held that actions already taken by them remain protected under Section 531 of the Kerala Municipality Act.

However, in the case of the Vadakkencherry grama panchayat member, the court noted that the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act does not contain a similar protective provision.

As a result, the court held that actions performed by the panchayat member until now would be treated as invalid, although he has been given an opportunity to retake the oath.

In its judgment, the court also referred to the teachings of Sree Narayana Guru and the constitutional principle of secularism, observing that people may address the Almighty by different names, but the law requires an oath to be taken only “in the name of God” or by making a solemn affirmation without further additions