Extraordinary Situations Demand Extraordinary Decisions: Kerala HC Allows BJP Councillor Under Preventive Detention To Take Oath Inside Prison

A Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan said, "When extraordinary situations arise, this Court must take extraordinary decisions to protect democratic principles and the people's mandate."

A writ petition was filed by an elected councillor of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation.

Advocate P.Vijayakumar appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Asaf Ali appeared for the Respondents.

The petitioner submitted that this Court had, through an earlier judgment, declared that the oath taken by him and some other councillors was not in accordance with the provisions of the Municipality Act and directed them to take a fresh oath. While the other councillors complied with the judgment, the petitioner stated that he was unable to do so because he was detained in jail under a preventive detention order passed under KAAPA.

The petitioner sought directions to produce him before the Mayor on July 14 to take the oath in compliance with the earlier judgment.

The Court noted that the petitioner was elected from Ward No. 20 (Vazhottukonam) of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation after the election held on December 9, 2025, with the result declared on December 13, 2025. He had taken oath on December 21, 2025, before the earlier judgment declared the oath invalid.

The judgment records that the petitioner was subsequently involved in two other criminal cases and that the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad, had granted interim bail for taking the oath. However, he could not attend the swearing-in ceremony scheduled for July 14 because he was under preventive detention under KAAPA.

During the hearing, the Director General of Prosecution submitted that the petitioner could not be released from jail because of the preventive detention order. Referring to Article 22 of the Constitution, it was submitted that under Article 22(3), clauses (1) and (2) are not applicable to persons detained under preventive detention. At the same time, the State informed the Court that, if ordered, it was ready to make arrangements for administering the oath inside the jail.

The Court observed that while issuing directions in the earlier judgment, it had "neither conceived nor intended to massacre democracy," adding that the directions were issued "in the background of the constitutional mandate to preserve and strengthen the rule of law."

The Court further observed, "Democracy, as envisaged under the constitution, is not a mere majoritarian exercise, but a structured process governed by established procedures and normative principles."

The Court said that if the petitioner was not allowed to take the oath, serious consequences will follow, adding, "When the very pulse of democracy is made to collapse over a solitary, disputed oath, the duty of this court is to uphold the democracy."

The Court also observed, "The people's mandate cannot be massacred by a procedural lapse."

Accordingly, the High Court directed the Superintendent of the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Viyyur, to make necessary arrangements for conducting the swearing-in ceremony inside the prison on July 14 at 11 a.m.

The Court also directed that the Mayor and the minimum required officers of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation be allowed to enter the prison to complete the procedure. It further ordered that accredited media persons be permitted to cover the swearing-in ceremony.

Cause Title: Sugathan R v. State of Kerala & Ors., [2026:KER:51348]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Suvin.R.Menon, P.Vijayakumar, T.C.Krishna, Parshathy S.R., Govind P., Achuth Krishnan R., Cristy Therasa Suresh

Respondents: Advocates T. Asaf Ali, R. V. Srrejith

Click here to read/download Order