Can't invoke deities, Bharat Mata: Court invalidates Kerala BJP councillors' oaths

The Kerala High Court ruled that elected representatives must take their oath strictly either "in the name of God" or through a solemn affirmation, as prescribed by law, and cannot add references to specific deities, Bharat Mata, political martyrs, organisations or individuals.

In Short

• Kerala HC invalidates oaths of 20 BJP councillors for invoking deities, Bharat Mata
• Says oaths must be taken 'in the name of God' or by solemn affirmation only
• Affected Thiruvananthapuram councillors take oath again in prescribed form

In a significant ruling on the statutory oath of elected representatives, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that members of local self-government institutions must take their oath strictly in the form prescribed under law, declaring invalid the oaths taken by 20 BJP councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and panchayats who invoked names beyond the legally prescribed format.

In a judgment delivered by Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, the court ruled that the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act permit elected representatives to take oath only "in the name of God" or by making a "solemn affirmation", and do not allow additions such as the names of specific deities, "Bharathamba" or "Bharat Mata", political martyrs, organisations or individuals.

The ruling came on a writ petition filed by CPI(M) councillor SP Deepak challenging the oath taken by BJP councillors after the 2025 local body elections.

The High Court directed the State Election Commission to make necessary arrangements for the affected councillors to retake their oath in accordance with law within four weeks. And subsequently, the councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Municpal took their oath of affirmation again.

The case arose after 20 BJP councillors in the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation took their oaths invoking various Hindu deities, Bharathamba, Bharat Mata, Gurudeva and martyrs of their political movement, instead of using the statutory expression "in the name of God" or opting for a solemn affirmation.

In a separate petition, a member of the Vadakkencherry grama panchayat in Palakkad district had taken oath "by God's blessing in the name of Oommen Chandy", prompting the court to examine the legality of such deviations.

Justice Kunhikrishnan held that the prescribed form of oath cannot be modified, however well-intentioned the additions may be.

"When the statute prescribes a particular manner in which an oath is to be taken the expansion of 'God' is not permissible," the court observed.

The court said the oath administered to elected representatives is not a mere formality but a solemn promise made to the electorate to uphold the Constitution, follow the rule of law and discharge public duties honestly.

While emphasising that every citizen is free to worship any deity or profess any religion, the judge held that statutory requirements governing public office must be followed exactly as enacted.

Referring to the constitutional principle of secularism and the teachings of Sree Narayana Guru, the judgment observed that people may call the Almighty by different names in their personal faith, but the law only recognises an oath taken "in the name of God" or a solemn affirmation, without any further expansion.

The court, however, refused to invalidate the election of the representatives, holding that the defect lay only in the oath-taking ceremony and not in the electoral mandate itself.

It directed the councillors and the panchayat member to take a fresh oath within four weeks and said no penal consequences should follow, as they had acted under a bona fide belief that their chosen form of oath was legally permissible.

For the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation councillors, the court also invoked Section 531 of the Kerala Municipality Act, protecting all decisions and actions taken by them until now despite the defective oath.

However, it noted that the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act contains no corresponding protective provision.

As a result, the court held that the actions performed so far by the Vadakkencherry grama panchayat member are invalid, although he has been granted an opportunity to regularise his position by taking a fresh oath.

The verdict comes as a setback for the BJP, which created history by wresting control of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation in the 2025 local body elections, ending the CPI(M)'s nearly four-decade dominance in the civic body.

Following the judgment, 19 of the 20 BJP councillors took their oath again hours after the verdict.

However, one councillor, Sugathan, will not be able to immediately comply with the court's direction as he is currently lodged in jail. Sugathan has been detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAPA) and also faces an attempt-to-murder case.

His inability to retake the oath could have political implications for the BJP-led administration in the corporation. Since the BJP does not enjoy an absolute majority in the civic body, any delay in restoring Sugathan's status as a duly sworn councillor could affect the party's numerical strength and its ability to retain control of the corporation.

The State Election Commission has been directed to facilitate the fresh oath-taking process within four weeks in accordance with the High Court's directions.

- Ends