Kerala High Court Orders Swift Resolution of Oath-Taking Complaints
The Kerala High Court has issued a directive to the state election commission, mandating it to consider and decide on complaints regarding alleged breaches in the sanctity of oath-taking ceremonies for elected representatives in local self-government institutions. The court has set a strict deadline of four weeks for this process.
PIL Highlights Alleged Violations of Statutory Norms
The order was passed by a bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice V M Syam Kumar while disposing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Sabu Stephen from Peyad, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner sought decisive action, including the potential disqualification of elected representatives who allegedly failed to adhere to the prescribed form and wording during their oath-taking.
The petitioner contended that several elected representatives violated key legal provisions:
- Section 22 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act
- Section 48 of the Kerala Municipality Act
- Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act
These sections prohibit undue religious and political influence in elections, and the petitioner argued that this prohibition extends to post-election functions such as oath-taking ceremonies, emphasizing the need for strict compliance to maintain democratic integrity.
Government Department Supports Petitioner's Claims
In a significant development, the local self-government department (LSGD) submitted its stance supporting the petitioner's contention. The LSGD acknowledged that there have been violations of the statutory norms prescribed for administering oaths under the relevant Acts.
The department also referenced a previous High Court decision, which held that an elected member who has not taken the oath in accordance with constitutional provisions is not entitled to sit or vote in the legislature until duly sworn in and is liable to pay prescribed penalties. This precedent underscores the legal gravity of the issue at hand.
Election Commission Details Complaints Received
In its affidavit, the state election commission provided detailed information about the complaints received regarding oath-taking ceremonies. The affidavit referred to six specific complaints:
- Four complaints filed by individuals
- Two complaints filed by returning officers
These complaints concern approximately 26 members elected to various local bodies. However, the petitioner submitted that the first written complaint mentioned in the affidavit pertains to about 98 elected councillors, indicating a potentially broader scope of alleged violations.
Court Directs Timely Resolution with Fair Hearing
Taking note of the pending complaints before the commission, the High Court directed the election commission to consider and decide on these matters within four weeks. The court emphasized that this process must include affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned, ensuring procedural fairness.
This directive aims to address the delays in resolving such complaints, which could undermine public trust in local governance. By setting a clear timeline, the court seeks to uphold the rule of law and ensure that elected representatives adhere to statutory requirements from the outset of their terms.
