Kerala High Court orders 20 BJP councillors, including accused, to retake oath

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation faces a fresh challenge after the Kerala High Court directed 20 of its councillors to retake their oaths within four weeks. The order, issued on Wednesday, stems from concerns over the validity of oaths taken by these councillors in January this year.

Among those affected is Deputy Mayor G.S. Ashanath and councillor R. Vinod, who swore their oath in the name of 'Bharath Matha'. Others used variations such as 'balidaanis' (martyrs in Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh parlance), 'Sree Padmanabhaswamy', 'Attukal Amma', or local deities like 'Thiruvallam Parasuraman' and 'Irumkulangara Durga Bhagavathi'. The High Court found that these forms deviate from the standard oath prescribed under the Kerala Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, which requires an oath in the name of God or a solemn affirmation.

The situation is particularly complex for the BJP because one of the councillors, R. Sugathan, is currently in judicial custody. Sugathan was arrested under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAPA) and is lodged at Viyyur Central Prison in Thrissur. He faces over 19 criminal cases, including charges of attempted murder. Sugathan had taken his oath in the name of 'Gurudevan'. It remains unclear whether he will be able to retake his oath from prison within the stipulated time.

Both the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left Democratic Front (LDF) and the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) have demanded Sugathan's removal from the council. LDF council party leader S.P. Deepak filed the original petition seeking disqualification of the 20 councillors on grounds of improper oath-taking.

The High Court, while passing the order, did not disqualify the councillors but directed them to retake the oath in the correct form. This gives the BJP some breathing room, though the party's position in the corporation could be affected if any councillor fails to comply within the deadline. The court also allowed the petitioners to approach it again if the order is not followed.

The case highlights the importance of adhering to constitutional procedures in local governance. The prescribed oath is intended to ensure that elected representatives commit to uphold the Constitution and perform their duties without invoking partisan or sectarian symbols. The matter is expected to be closely watched as the four-week deadline approaches.