Oaths Taken By Councillors In Names Of Political Martyrs & Leaders, Local Deities And Other Persons Invalid: Kerala High Court

The Court declared invalid the oaths taken by several elected local body representatives after finding that they deviated from the forms prescribed under the respective statutes.

The Court was dealing with two writ petitions challenging the validity of oaths taken by elected representatives of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation and Vadakkencherry Grama Panchayat.

The challenge arose after several councillors took oath in the names of Mother India, Gurudeva, political martyrs and various deities, while one elected panchayat member took oath stating that he was doing so "by God's blessing in the name of Oommen Chandy."

A Single Judge Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed: “… there is no doubt that the oath taken by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 23 in WP (C) No.1502 of 2026, is not as per the Municipality Act. Similarly, the 6th respondent in WP (C) No.48425 of 2025 took oath stating that ‘By God's blessing in the name of Oommen Chandy’. This is also not in accordance with the Panchayat Raj Act. 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.”

Senior Advocate E.K. Nandakumar appeared for the petitioner. Deepu Lal Mohan, SC, represented the respondents.

Background

The first petition challenged the validity of oaths taken by several elected councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation after the local body elections held in December 2025. The councillors had taken oath in the names of Mother India, Gurudeva, political martyrs, political movements and various deities instead of taking oath in the name of God or making a solemn affirmation as prescribed under Section 143 of the Kerala Municipality Act.

The second petition concerned an elected member of the Vadakkencherry Grama Panchayat who took oath stating that he was doing so "by God's blessing in the name of Oommen Chandy", the former Chief Minister of Kerala.

The petitioners contended that such oaths were contrary to the forms prescribed under the Municipality Act and Panchayat Raj Act and, therefore, invalid in law.

Court's Observations

At the outset, the Court emphasised the constitutional significance of the oath-taking process in a democracy.

The Court observed: "Taking an oath by an elected person in a democracy means that the elected person is promising the electorate that he will be honest, he will follow the constitution and the rule of law, and he will serve the people with sincerity. Therefore, when he takes the oath, it should be taken as prescribed by the relevant statute and rules."

After examining Section 143 of the Kerala Municipality Act and Section 152 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the Court noted that both provisions require elected representatives to either swear "in the name of God" or make a "solemn affirmation" in the prescribed form before assuming office.

The Court observed that the forms prescribed under the two statutes are substantially similar to the form of oath contained in the Third Schedule to the Constitution and therefore require strict compliance.

Justice Kunhikrishnan relied extensively on the Division Bench judgment in Haridasan Palayil v. Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly, which dealt with a legislator taking oath in the name of Sree Narayana Guru.

Quoting the decision, the Court observed: "One of the settled principles of law is that if a particular thing is required to be done in a particular way, it must be done in that way and no other. In the present case, the Constitution lays down the form. It gives a limited option. One can either subscribe to the oath, or make an affirmation. In case, the person chooses to take the oath he has to swear in the name of God. None else. The Constitution does not permit any deviation or variation. For if any deviation were permitted, we may not know where to stop."

The Court further reproduced the Division Bench's observation that while every individual is free to act according to his faith in private life, a person holding constitutional or statutory office is bound by the prescribed constitutional mandate.

The Division Bench had held: "Every one of us has the freedom to act according to his faith. But only in our private lives. When a person occupies a constitutional position, he has to scrupulously abide by and observe the constitutional mandate."

The Court also relied upon the following observations from Haridasan Palayil: "The oath is not a matter of formality. Nor a superstition. It is not a mere ritual. It is a constitutional mandate", and that "the person has to demonstrate his allegiance to the Constitution of India by scrupulously abiding by the form. Not by altering it. Otherwise, there would be no end to the modifications or variations."

The respondents relied upon the later Division Bench judgment in Madhu Parumala v. Speaker, where oath-taking by Muslim legislators in the name of Allah had been upheld.

The Court extracted the relevant observations from Madhu Parumala, where the Division Bench held: "The word God used in Form VIIB is not in general term but takes in God in its restricted term particularly to the person who takes the oath."

The Division Bench had also observed: "Oath taking, in our view, is purely personal and its purpose is to give sanctity to the pledge by which the oath taker binds himself", and further held: "When a person belonging to Muslim community takes oath in the name of Allah he is not violating any constitutional provisions. Constitution permits to take oath in the name of God."

However, Justice Kunhikrishnan distinguished the facts of Madhu Parumala.

The Court observed that the Division Bench in that case was dealing with the use of the term "Allah", which is recognised as God in Islam, and could never have anticipated a situation where elected representatives would begin taking oaths in the names of political martyrs, political organisations or political leaders.

The Court remarked: "I am sure that the Division Bench in Madhu Parumala's case never imagined that in future the elected people would take an oath in the name of the martyrs of the political parties of the elected person, or in the name of his political party or in the name of Oommen Chandy, the former Chief Minister of Kerala."

Justice Kunhikrishnan clarified that the Court was not questioning anyone's personal beliefs.

The Court observed: "To some, Late Shri. Oommen Chandy may be a god, and to some, the martyrs of their political party are their god, and to some, their political party itself may be their god."

However, the Court held that permitting such a subjective interpretation would render the statutory form meaningless.

Referring to the Sanskrit maxim "Matha Pitha Guru Daivam", the Court observed that if personal belief alone became the governing criterion, an elected representative could equally claim that his father, mother or school teacher was his visible God and take an oath in their names.

The Court remarked: "If an elected person says that, his god is his primary school teacher, 'Madhavan mash' or 'Kesavan Mash' or 'Damodaran Mash' ... nobody can blame him because he believes them as his god."

The Judge further illustrated the dangers of such an approach by referring to reports that the notorious forest brigand Veerappan is worshipped by certain sections of society.

The Court observed: "If an elected person in a democracy says that 'Veerappan' is his hero and god, therefore he wants to take an oath in the name of Veerappan, if the principles in Madhu Parumala's case is strictly followed, nobody can blame him."

The Court therefore concluded that the principle laid down in Haridasan Palayil represented the correct approach in cases involving additions or substitutions to a statutorily prescribed oath.

Justice Kunhikrishnan reiterated that where a statute prescribes a particular manner for doing a thing, it must be done only in that manner.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad, the Court observed: "It is a well-settled salutary principle that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner."

Applying that principle, the Court held: "When a form is prescribed for taking an oath, none can vary from it on the basis of personal belief. The elected persons can add their names and the details of their constituencies in the blank space shown on the form, nothing else."

The Court further observed: "As observed in Haridasan Palayil's case (supra), if this is allowed, there will be no end, and the name of 'god' mentioned in the form of an oath in the Act and Rules will be rewritten based on the belief of the person taking the oath."

The Court clarified that every individual is constitutionally entitled to worship and believe in any deity, person or ideal of their choice. However, the Court held that once the legislature prescribes a statutory form of oath, it cannot be modified based on personal convictions.

The Court also reflected on the philosophical and constitutional significance of the expression "God" used in the statutory forms of oath. Referring to the teachings of Sree Narayana Guru, Justice Kunhikrishnan observed that much of the controversy would disappear if the Almighty were understood through a common conception rather than through individual names and identities.

The Court observed: "We are forgetting the declaration of Sree Narayana Guru, a century back, which says that 'One Caste One Religion One God to Humankind'."

The Bench noted that India's constitutional commitment to secularism guarantees every citizen the freedom to believe in and worship a deity of his or her choice. Referring to Adi Sankaracharya's doctrine of Advaita Vedanta and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience, the Court observed that citizens are free to identify God in different ways and according to different faith traditions.

The Court observed: "The Constitution provides the right to freedom of religion, including freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion. This also includes the right to believe in any God, and the citizen can choose any god of their choice."

The Court further referred to the Rig Veda and the concept of non-dualism, observing that different religions may call the Almighty by different names, while ultimately referring to the same supreme being. Quoting the Rig Veda, the Court observed: "Ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti" – (Truth is one, the wise call it by many names).

The Bench explained that Hindus may worship Rama, Krishna, Siva or Devi, Muslims may call God Allah, and Christians may worship Jesus, but the constitutional scheme recognises the freedom of every individual to follow his or her own faith. According to the Court, this constitutional and philosophical understanding may also explain why the legislature chose the simple expression "God" in the oath provisions without providing any further expansion or definition.

The Bench remarked that this reflected the essence of Sree Narayana Guru's message and observed: "This is the crux of Sree Narayana Guru's message... We need not expand God by name. Let the almighty bless all!"

Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned oaths were not in conformity with the forms prescribed under the Kerala Municipality Act and Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and were therefore invalid.

The Court concluded: “The upshot of the above discussion is that the oaths taken by the party respondents in these writ petitions are invalid. But the party respondents were elected by the electorate in a democratic process. Simply because the party respondents committed an illegality during the oath-taking ceremony, their election cannot be set aside. The mandate of the people is supreme in a democracy. They can be given an opportunity to take an oath in accordance with the provisions of the Municipality Act and the Panchayat Raj Act”.

Conclusion

The Court declared that the oaths taken by the respondents in the names of Mother India, political martyrs, Gurudeva, Oommen Chandy and other persons or deities were invalid as they departed from the statutory form prescribed under the Kerala Municipality Act and Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

However, considering the consequences that would follow from invalidating the memberships of elected representatives, the Court directed the respondents to take fresh oaths in accordance with the law.

Cause Title: S.P. Deepak v. Kerala State Election Commissioner & Ors. and Connected Matter (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:45209)

Appearance

Petitioners: Senior Advocate E.K. Nandakumar; Advocates Bappu Galib Salam, Benoj C. Augustin, D.G. Vipin, Daniel A.J., Manisha V.V. and J. Amaldev.

Respondents: Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar; Advocates Deepu Lal Mohan (Standing Counsel for Kerala State Election Commission), Suman Chakravarthy (Standing Counsel for Thiruvananthapuram Corporation), P. Abdul Nishad (Government Pleader), Kabeer S. (Government Pleader), Mahadev M.J., T.C. Krishna, Renjish S. Menon, C. Dinesh, S. Biju (Kizhakkanela), V. Girishkumar, Arathi Karunakaran, Parshathy S.R., Achuth Krishnan R., Cristy Therasa Suresh, Gokul Krishna, Helen P.A., Govind P., P. Anirudhan, Suraj Kumar D., R.V. Sreejith, G. Maheswary, Keerthana M. Nair, Chandana C., 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 and Sadiq Nazar.

Click here to read/download Judgment