Published Jun 24, 2026 | 2:50 PM ⚊ Updated Jun 24, 2026 | 2:50 PM
The Kerala HC declared invalid the oath taken by 20 BJP councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and a member of Vadakkenchery gram panchayat
Synopsis: The Kerala High Court declared invalid the oath taken by 20 BJP councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and a member of Vadakkenchery grama panchayat, holding that the oath didn’t follow the format prescribed under law. The court directed directed all 21 elected representatives to take the oath afresh within four weeks, as their earlier oath-taking was found to be legally unacceptable.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, 24 June, declared invalid the oath taken by 20 BJP councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and a member of Vadakkenchery grama panchayat, holding that the oath didn’t follow the format prescribed under law.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan directed all 21 elected representatives to take the oath afresh within four weeks, as their earlier oath-taking was found to be legally unacceptable.
The court observed that elected representatives can take their oath only in the name of God or by making a solemn affirmation, as provided under the Kerala Municipality Act, Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Article 188 of the Constitution.
The court held that adding names, references, or expressions beyond the prescribed format was not permissible.
Also Read: Kerala native among 12 Indians dead in Qatar gas plant blast
The controversy arose after the BJP councillors, who were elected in the 2025 local body elections, took oath while referring to various deities, Mother India, organisational martyrs and Sreenarayana Guru.
The councillors included references to deities such as Lord Ayyappa, Kavilamma, Attukalamma, Bharatamba, Sree Padmanabhan, Sreenarayana Guru and martyrs associated with their organisation during their oath-taking ceremony.
A member of the Vadakkenchery grama panchayat also took oath in the name of the late chief minister Oommen Chandy, which was also challenged before the court.
The petition was filed by CPI(M) councillor SP Deepak, who challenged the validity of the oath taken by the BJP councillors.
Deepak told South First that the oath-taking ceremony was in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act. He said the petition sought directions restraining the councillors from functioning as elected members until they took a valid oath in accordance with the law.
He also challenged their participation in the mayoral election that was held after the oath ceremony.
The high court considered whether references to religious figures, organisations or individuals could be included while taking an oath prescribed for elected representatives.
The court noted that while individuals may have different understandings and beliefs regarding God, the legal issue before it was whether additional references could be attached to the oath format laid down by law.
Referring to Section 152 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, Section 143 of the Kerala Municipality Act and the Third Schedule of the Constitution, the court said the law provides only two options — taking an oath in the name of God or making a solemn affirmation.
“The term ‘God’ is not defined either in the Panchayat Raj Act or in the Municipality Act.
The situation is similar under Article 188, coupled with the Third Schedule of the Constitution, where the oath is also to be taken either in the name of God or by solemn affirmation. When the statute prescribes a particular manner in which an oath is to be taken by the elected members in a democracy, i.e. either in the name of God or a solemn affirmation, the expansion of ‘God’ is not permissible,” the court observed.
The councillors who have been directed to take the oath again include Vishnu Mohan, Asha Nath, Harikumar, Deepa S Nair, O Sukanya, Jaya Rajeev, Sunil S S, Mini PS, Vayalkkara Rajesh, R Vinod, Gopakumar, Sruthi SS, V Giri, Saritha P, Chembazhanthi Udayan, R Sugathan, Surya VS, Sreedevi SK, Pappanamcode Saji and RC Beena.
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation Deputy Mayor Ashanath GS is also among those affected by the court order.
The high court has directed all councillors and the Vadakkenchery Panchayat member to complete the fresh oath-taking process within four weeks in the manner prescribed by law.
Also Read: Kerala BJP leader George Kurian quits as Union Minister after Rajya Sabha term ends
Following the court order, questions have arisen over whether it would affect the BJP’s majority in the Corporation, as one of its 20 councillors is currently lodged in the Viyyur Central Jail after being arrested under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAPA).
Currently, the BJP holds 50 of the 101 seats in the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. In the mayoral election, the party secured 51 votes, including one from an independent councillor.
Following the arrest of BJP councillor R Sugathan under the KAAPA, both the CPI(M) and the Congress have demanded his removal from the council, while the BJP leadership has stood firmly behind him and promised full legal support.
However, if Sugathan is disqualified as a councillor, the BJP’s majority could be at risk.
Speaking to South First, Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) General Secretary Akhil JS said the high court order invalidating the oath taken by BJP councillors does not immediately affect the party’s strength in the Corporation.
“The court order has not put the BJP at any risk because it only invalidated the oath-taking process. It did not affect the councillors’ positions or the validity of their election,” he said.
Commenting on Sugathan’s situation, Akhil said that a councillor can be disqualified if he remains absent from three consecutive council meetings without valid reasons.
“If he fails to attend three consecutive council meetings, he can be debarred. The chairperson must report the matter to the government, which in turn has to inform the State Election Commission,” he said.
He further noted that neither the court verdict nor the developments surrounding Sugathan have altered the BJP’s numerical strength in the Corporation.
“The court has specifically stated that all decisions taken by the council so far remain valid. Only the oath-taking process has been declared invalid and must be repeated,” he added.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
