The Kerala HC directed authorities to conduct a fresh oath-taking ceremony within four weeks and emphasized that statutory oath requirements must be followed without alteration.
BY PC Bureau
June 24, 2026: The Kerala High Court has ruled that elected representatives of local self-government institutions cannot modify the statutory oath of office by invoking the names of deities, national icons, political leaders, or other personalities. The court declared such oaths legally invalid and directed a fresh swearing-in process for the affected representatives.
In a judgment delivered on Wednesday, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan held that the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act provide only two legally permissible options for taking the oath of office: either “in the name of God” or by making a solemn affirmation. Any deviation from the prescribed wording, the court said, is contrary to law.
The ruling came in response to petitions challenging the oath-taking ceremony of 20 BJP councillors elected to the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. During the ceremony, the councillors reportedly invoked the names of various Hindu deities, Bharathamba (Mother India), Bharatha Matha, Gurudeva, and martyrs associated with their political ideology while taking the oath.
The court also considered a separate case involving a member of the Vadakkencherry Grama Panchayat in Palakkad district, who took the oath “by God’s blessing in the name of Oommen Chandy,” the late former Chief Minister of Kerala.
Examining the statutory provisions governing local body representatives, the court emphasized that the oath is not a mere formality but a solemn constitutional and legal commitment to uphold the Constitution, respect the rule of law, and faithfully discharge public duties.
Justice Kunhikrishnan observed that when legislation prescribes a specific manner for administering an oath, elected representatives are bound to follow it strictly. The court held that expanding or replacing the term “God” with references to any deity, individual, organisation, or ideological symbol is impermissible under the law.
Although the court found the oaths to be legally defective, it declined to invalidate the election of the councillors and the panchayat member. The judgment noted that the defect related only to the oath-taking process and did not affect the democratic mandate received by the elected representatives.
READ: Selective Justice? Questions Grow Over Security Operations in Manipur
The High Court directed the concerned authorities to arrange a fresh oath-taking ceremony within four weeks and ensure that the oath is administered strictly in accordance with the statutory format.
The court also refrained from imposing any penalties, observing that the representatives appeared to have acted in good faith and may have genuinely believed that the wording they used was legally acceptable.
The judgment is expected to serve as an important precedent on the interpretation of statutory oath requirements and the limits of personal, political, or religious expression during official swearing-in ceremonies.
