Kerala HC: Oaths Must Be in Name of God or Solemn Affirmation Only

The Kerala High Court has ruled that elected local body representatives must take their oath strictly in the manner prescribed by law, invalidating oaths taken by BJP councillors in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation who invoked names other than ‘God’ or used expressions beyond a solemn affirmation.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan delivered the judgment on Wednesday (June 24, 2026), holding that the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act require elected members to take oath either “in the name of God” or by making a solemn affirmation. Expanding the wording to include specific deities, ‘Mother India’, political martyrs, organisations, or individuals is not permitted under the statutes.

The case arose after 20 councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation took oath in the names of various Hindu deities, ‘Bharathamba’ (Mother India), ‘Bharatha Matha’, Gurudeva, and martyrs of their political movement. In a separate petition, a member of the Vadakkencherry grama panchayat in Palakkad district took oath “by God’s blessing in the name of Oommen Chandy”.

The court observed that taking an oath is a solemn promise to the electorate that an elected representative will uphold the Constitution, follow the rule of law, and serve the public honestly. Such an oath must be administered exactly as prescribed by law. Justice Kunhikrishnan clarified that while citizens are free to worship any deity or follow any religion, the statutory form of oath does not allow additions or substitutions.

“When the statute prescribes a particular manner in which an oath is to be taken… the expansion of ‘God’ is not permissible,” the judgment said.

However, the court declined to unsettle the democratic mandate of the elected representatives. It held that their elections remain valid despite the defective oath-taking ceremony. The court directed authorities to make arrangements for the affected councillors and the panchayat member to take a fresh oath in accordance with the law within four weeks. It also ruled that no penalties should be imposed on them, noting that they acted under a bona fide belief that their form of oath was legally valid.

For the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation councillors, the court held that their actions taken so far remain protected under Section 531 of the Kerala Municipality Act. However, in the case of the Vadakkencherry grama panchayat member, the court noted that the Panchayat Raj Act contains no equivalent protective provision. Consequently, it held that the actions performed by that member until now are invalid, although he has been given an opportunity to retake the oath.

In the order, the judge referred to the teachings of Sree Narayana Guru and the constitutional principle of secularism, observing that people may call the Almighty by different names but that the law simply requires an oath to be taken “in the name of God” or by solemn affirmation without further expansion.