The Kerala High Court on Thursday issued notice on a writ petition challenging the validity of oaths taken by councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation in the name of various deities, martyrs, political movements and political leaders.

Admitting the petition by Advocate SP Deepak, Justice P V Kunhikrishnan observed that the question of whether an oath can be taken in the name of a living person, teacher or godman needs to be examined by the court.

The petitioner has alleged that 20 councillors, instead of swearing in the name of God or making a solemn affirmation as mandated under Section 143 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, took oaths in the name of deities, martyrs, political movements and political leaders.

According to the petition, the oaths were taken in the name of “Gurudeva Namathil”, “Udayannoor Deviyude Namathil”, “Kavilammayde Namathil”, “Bhagavath Namathil”, “Sree Padmanabha Swamyude Namathil”, “Bharathambayude Namathil”, “Ente Prasthanathile Balidanikalude Peril”, “Bharatha Mathavinte Namathil”, “Thiruvallam Parasuramante Namathil”, “Attukal Ammayude Namathil”, “Sree Irumkulangara Durga Bhagavathiyude Namathil”, “Padmanabhanteyum Sree Mahavishnuvinteyum Namathil”, “Sreekanteswaran Ammayappan Namathil”, “Ayyappa Namathil” and “Karyavattom Sree Dharma Sasthavinte Namathil” etc.

The petitioner contended that such oaths violate Section 143 read with the Third Schedule of the Act, which prescribes the form and manner of oath. It was also argued that the oath must be to the Constitution and not to political parties, their martyrs or ideological movements, and that the practice runs contrary to binding directions issued by the State Election Commission.

Reliance was placed on the Kerala High Court judgment in Haridasan Palayil v The Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly (2003 (3) KLT 119) to stress the need for strict adherence to the prescribed form of oath.

The petitioner has sought directions to call upon the councillors to show cause under what authority they are holding office in the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation and to declare the oaths taken by them as invalid.

While admitting the petition, the court observed that the prescribed form requires an oath in the name of “God” or a solemn affirmation, and that people may have differing perceptions of God. However, it said whether an oath can be taken in the name of a living person, teacher or godman, even if considered divine by the person taking the oath, is an important legal question that requires adjudication.

The court issued notice to the State Election Commission, the concerned councillors and other respondents, and clarified that the oaths taken by the councillors would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

The CPM had in December lodged complaints with the district collector and the chief electoral officer seeking to invalidate the oaths taken by 20 councillors. The complaints were filed by district secretary V Joy and SP Deepak, citing that swearing in the name of deities amounts to a violation of rules.

In a 2003 ruling, the Kerala High Court set aside the oath taken in the name of Guru Deva by JSS leader Umesh Chaliyil, who was elected as the Kodungallur MLA in the 2001 Assembly elections. Allowing a public interest litigation, a division bench comprising then Chief Justice JL Gupta and Justice R Basanth held the oath invalid.

The bench had directed Umesh Chaliyil to take the oath again to retain his membership in the Assembly and ordered that a fine be imposed for every day he had sat in the House until then. Accordingly, he retook the oath and paid a fine of ₹41,000. Although Umesh Chaliyil challenged the verdict in the Supreme Court, the apex court upheld the Kerala High Court’s ruling.
(With LiveLaw inputs.)