Kerala High Court Questions Oath Validity of 20 Thiruvananthapuram Councillors
In a significant legal development, the Kerala High Court in Kochi made a crucial ruling on Thursday. The court held that the validity of oaths taken by 20 councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram corporation is now subject to the outcome of a pending petition. This petition challenges the manner in which these oaths were administered, alleging violations of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.
Petition Filed by CPM Leader
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan issued this order while considering a petition filed by S P Deepak. Deepak serves as the CPM parliamentary party leader within the Thiruvananthapuram corporation. His petition raised serious concerns about the oath-taking process followed by the 20 councillors.
The core allegation centers on a potential breach of Section 143 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. This section, read alongside the Third Schedule of the Act, governs the proper procedure for taking oaths of office.
Alleged Violations of the Act
Deepak contended in his petition that the councillors did not adhere to the stipulated format. He pointed out that instead of taking the oath simply in the name of "God" or by making a "solemn affirmation," as required, they invoked various specific names.
The councillors reportedly took their oaths in the name of several deities. These included Sree Padmanabhaswamy, Udiyannoor Devi, Kavilamma, Attukalamma, Thiruvallam Parasuraman, and Gurudevan. Furthermore, some councillors chose to take their oaths in the name of party martyrs, adding another layer of complexity to the case.
Court's Observations and Legal Questions
During the hearing, the High Court made several pertinent observations. The court acknowledged that personal belief is a matter of individual right and discretion. It noted that some individuals might genuinely believe their god to be a living person, a guru, or a godman.
However, the court emphasized that this personal perspective raises an important legal question. Whether an oath can be legally taken in the name of a living person, teacher, or godman—even if considered a god from an individual's viewpoint—requires proper adjudication. This distinction between personal faith and legal procedure forms the heart of the matter.
Court's Order and Next Steps
Accordingly, the Kerala High Court admitted the petition for detailed consideration. It clarified a crucial point: the oath taken by the 20 councillors will remain valid only provisionally. Its final validity is now entirely dependent on the outcome of this legal case.
The court has also taken the procedural step of issuing formal notices to all 20 councillors involved. They will now have the opportunity to present their side of the argument as the case moves forward. This ruling puts a temporary cloud over the official status of these elected representatives until the court delivers its final verdict on the interpretation of the oath-taking provisions.
