The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (24 June) allowed a writ petition challenging the oath taken by the Councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation in the name of various deities, martyrs and political movements.

Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan directed the State Election Commission to make necessary arrangements to facilitate respondent no.4 to 23 (councillors) to take the oath once again, within four weeks.

“Writ Petition is Allowed. Oath taken by respondent 4 to 23 in WP(C) 1502/ 2026 is declared invalid. The competent authority among respondent 1 to 3 will make necessary arrangements to facilitate respondent no.4 to 23 to take oath once again within four weeks from date of receipt of separate copy of judgment,” the Court ordered.

The plea claimed that the party respondents 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 had 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.

While allowing the plea today, the single judge further clarified that the benefit of Section 531 of the Municipality Act is available to respondent-Councillors till today.

For context, Section 531 states that no Act or proceedings of the Council of a Municipality or a Standing Committee or any other Committee shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect in constitution, vacancy, irregularity or illegality in the election of a person.

The Court also considered a petition challenging the oath of a member of Vadakkanchery Grama Panchayat who swore in the name of Oommen Chandy, late former Chief Minister of Kerala.

The Court noted that the prescribed form under the Panchayat Raj Act only leaves two options, which are swearing in the name of God or making a solemn affirmation. The Court observed that any deviation from the prescribed form would undermine the statutory scheme.

The court noted that, unlike the Kerala Municipality Act, the Panchayat Raj Act doe snot contain anu provision protecting acts done by a member whose oath is later found invalid. Consequently, it held that all acts performed by the respondent as a member of the Vadakkencherry Grama Panchayat up to the date of the judgment are invalid, though he may regularise his position by taking a fresh oath within the time granted.

(A detailed judgment is awaited)

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

Case No: WP(C) 1502/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 344

Counsel for Petitioner: Bappu Galib Salam, Benoj C Augustin

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