"Can Oath Be Taken In Name Of Living Persons Or Godmen?" Kerala High Court To Examine Validity Of Trivandrum Councillors' Oaths

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan, has admitted the petition, observing that whether an oath can be taken in the name of "living person, teacher, god man", etc needs to be decided.

The petitioner, in his petition, has stated that the party respondents (20 Councillors) instead of swearing in the name of God or making a solemn affirmation as mandated by Section 143 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, swore in name of various deities, martyrs, political movements and political leaders.

The oaths were taken in the name of “Gurudeva Namathil”, “Udayannoor Deviyude Namathil”, “Kavilammayde Namathil”, “Bhagavath Namathil”, “Sree Padmanabha Swamyude Namathil”, “Bharathambayude Namathil”, “Ente Prasthanathile Balidanikalude Peril”, “Bharatha Mathavinte Namathil”, “Thiruvallam Parasuramante Namathil”, “Attukal Ammayude Namathil”, “Sree Irumkulangara Durga Bhagavathiyude Namathil”, “Padmanabhanteyum Sree Mahavishnuvinteyum Namathil”, “Sreekanteswaran Ammayappan Namathil”, “Ayyappa Namathil”, “Karyavattom Sree Dharma Sasthavinte Namathil” etc.

The petitioner submitted that the acts of the party respondent-councillors are in violation of Section 143 read with Third Schedule of the Act 1994.

The petitioner has also submitted that the oath must be to the Constitution, and not to a political party or its martyrs and hence the purported oaths are in violation of the binding directions of the State Election Commission.

The petitioner has also relied on Haridasan Palayil v The Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly [2003 (3) KLT 119], to highlight the strict adherence to form of the oath.

The petitioners have prayed to call upon the councilors to show cause as to under what authority the councillors are holding office at the Thiruvanathapuram Municipal Corporation and to quash the oath taken by the respondents as invalid.

The Court, today, while admitting the petition, observed:

“As per the schedule, the oath is to be taken in the name of “God/ solemnly affirm”. God may be different for different people. Some people may think that, his god is a living person or the guru of a person or a god man. Nobody can blame them because it is their right and discretion. But, whether oath can be taken by a person in the name of a living person, his teacher, god man, etc. who are the god in his perspective, is an important question to be decided.”

The Court thus issued notice to the State Election Commission and has also issued notice to councilors whose oath is in question and other party respondents. 

The Court has noted that the oath taken by the Councillors will be subject to the result of the writ petition.

Case Title: Adv. S P Deepak v The Kerala State Election Commissioner and Ors

Case No: WP(C) 1502/ 2026

Counsel for Petitioner: Bappu Galib Salam, Benoj C Augustin

Counsel for Respondents: Deepu Lal Mohan(SC- KSEC), Suman Chakravarthy