Elected Representatives Must Swear Only In Name Of God Or Solemnly Affirm; Can't Invoke Specific Deities: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that elected representatives cannot expand or modify the statutory form of oath by invoking specific deities, political martyrs, organisations or public figures, observing that such departures could lead to limitless variations and undermine the uniformity intended by law. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 344]Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, made the observations while holding...
The Kerala High Court has held that elected representatives cannot expand or modify the statutory form of oath by invoking specific deities, political martyrs, organisations or public figures, observing that such departures could lead to limitless variations and undermine the uniformity intended by law. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 344]
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, made the observations while holding that oaths taken by representatives in the local self government in the name of deities, Martyrs and political movements as invalid.
The court examined conflicting precedents, including Haridasan Palayil v. Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly 2003 KHC 1078] and Madhu Parumala v. Speaker and Others [2006 KHC 848].
In Madhu Parimala, a division Bench of the Court held that when a person belonging to a Muslim community takes an oath in the name of Allah, he is not violating any constitutional principles. In the present case, the Court preferred the reasoning in Haridasan Palayil, and emphasised that when a statute prescribes a particular manner for performing an act, it must be done in that manner alone.
The Court stressed that when a statute prescribes a manner of taking an oath, as either in the name of God or a solemn affirmation, the expansion of the word “God” is not permissible.
The court acknowledged that every citizen enjoys the constitutional freedom to believe in any deity or spiritual figure of their choice. However, it drew a distinction between personal faith and statutory obligations.
“It is true that the constitution allow a citizen to believe in gods of their choice. Therefore I make it clear that, this court never intended that the persons or deities on which the party respondents took oath are not their god. They can believe them as god and it is their constitutional right. But when an oath is taken based on a statute, none can add or substitute anything to the form prescribed in the statute.” the Court said.
It added,
"We need not expand God by name...God is one for all. Hindus believe that their God is “Rama, Krishna, Siva, Devi, etc.”, Muslims say that it is “Allah”, and Christians say that it is “Jesus”...That may be the reason why the legislature, in Section 152 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Section 143 of the Kerala Municipality Act...has provided that the oath is to be taken by elected members either in the name of God or by solemn affirmation without any expansion."
The court noted that if elected representatives were permitted to take oaths in the names of individuals or entities they personally regarded as divine, there would be no logical stopping point.
Justice Kunhikrishnan illustrated the point with a series of examples, observing that a person might regard a parent, teacher, political leader or even the martyrs of a political movement as a god-like figure.
The Court further cited that some people revere the Veerappan, a forest bandit, as a deity and remarking that a literal application of a broader interpretation could even permit an oath in his name if he were considered a god by the oath-taker.
The court said such a position would effectively allow every individual to rewrite the statutory oath according to personal beliefs.
The court expressed reservations about oaths taken in the names of political martyrs and former Chief Minister Oommen Chandy.
Justice Kunhikrishnan observed that although some individuals may hold political leaders or martyrs in deep reverence, the statutory oath cannot be transformed into a vehicle for expressing political allegiance.
The court remarked that it doubted whether Oommen Chandy himself, if alive, would have approved of an elected representative taking an oath in his name by treating him as a deity.
Referring to Sree Narayana Guru's message of “One Caste, One Religion, One God for Humankind” and Adi Shankaracharya's philosophy of non-dualism, the court lamented the tendency to divide God by names and identities.
“Before concluding, I am forced to say why we do not call the almighty of all religions with a common name, God? If that happens, there ends the whole problem. We are forgetting the declaration of Sree Narayana Guru, a century back, which says that “Oru jaathi oru matham oru daivam manushyanu” (One Caste One Religion One God to Humankind)”. Court said
The Court cited the Rig Vedic expression “Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudha Vadanti” (“Truth is one, the wise call it by many names”) and observed that Hindus, Muslims and Christians may invoke different names, yet ultimately worship the same Almighty.
The Court thus observed that the legislature deliberately used the expression “God” without any expansion in both the Constitution and the relevant local self-government statutes.
“The term “God” is not defined either in the Panchayat Raj Act or in the Municipality Act. The situation is similar under Article 188, coupled with the Third Schedule of our Constitution, where also, the oath is to be taken either in the name of God or by solemn affirmation. When the statute prescribes a particular manner in which an oath is to be taken by the elected members in a democracy, i.e., either in the name of God or a solemn affirmation, the expansion of “God” is not permissible.” Court noted.
The Court concluded by quoting a Malayalam lyric emphasising the unity of worship across religions and expressing the hope that believers would embrace the broader message of spiritual unity.
“The believers have to achieve the message of Sree Narayana Guru. We need not expand God by name. Let the almighty bless all! I leave it there.” the Court concluded.
The Court thus declared the oath taken by the representatives as invalid. It had also directed the State Election Commission to make necessary arrangement to take oath again within four weeks.
Case Title: Adv. S P Deepak v The Kerala State Election Commissioner and Ors and connected matter
Case No: WP(C) 1502/ 2026 and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
Counsel for Petitioner: E.K. Nandakumar (Sr.), Bappu Galib Salam, Benoj C Augustin, D.G Vipin, Daniel A.J, Manisha V.V, J. Amaldev
Counsel for Respondents: S. Sreekumar (Sr.), Deepu Lal Mohan(SC- KSEC), Suman Chakravarthy, P. Abdul Nishad (GP), Mahadev M.J, T.C. Krishna, Renjish S. Menon, C. Dinesh, S. Biju, V. Girishkumar, Arathi Karunakaran, Parsathy S.R, Achuth Krishnan R, Cristy Theresa Suresh, Gokul Krishna, Helen P.A, Govind P, P. Anirudhan, Suraj Kumar D, R.V. Sreejith, G. Maheswary, Keerthana M. Nair, Chandana C, Kabeer S (GP), N. Krishna Prasad, N. Anand, V.R. Manoranjan, P. Shanes Methar, Arjun P.V, Harkish Sreethu V.S, Pushparaj K.P, Rajesh O.N, Ameer Salim, Sadiq Nazar