'Only in God's name': HC invalidates BJP councillors' oaths in names of deities, 'Mother India'

NEW DELHI: The Kerala high court on Wednesday ruled that elected local body representatives must take their oath strictly in the manner prescribed by law, declaring invalid the oaths of several BJP councillors in the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation who invoked the names of deities, "Mother India" and other figures while being sworn in. In a judgment delivered by Justice P V Kunhikrishnan, the court held that the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act permit elected members to take oath only "in the name of God" or through a solemn affirmation. Any addition, expansion or substitution of those prescribed words is not allowed under the law, PTI reported. The case stemmed from petitions challenging the oath-taking ceremony of 20 BJP councillors in the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. The councillors had taken oath in the names of various Hindu deities, Bharathamba (Mother India), Bharatha Matha, Gurudeva and martyrs associated with their political movement. In a separate case, a member of the Vadakkencherry grama panchayat in Palakkad district took oath "by God's blessing in the name of Oommen Chandy", the late former Kerala chief minister. The court observed that taking an oath is a solemn constitutional and statutory obligation through which elected representatives pledge to uphold the Constitution, follow the rule of law and serve the public honestly. "When the statute prescribes a particular manner in which an oath is to be taken… the expansion of 'God' is not permissible," PTI quoted the judgement saying. While declaring the oaths invalid, the court declined to disturb the election of the representatives concerned. It held that the democratic mandate received by them remained unaffected despite the defective oath-taking process. The court directed authorities to facilitate a fresh oath-taking ceremony for the affected councillors and the panchayat member within four weeks. It also ruled that no penalties should be imposed on them, noting that they appeared to have acted under a bona fide belief that their chosen wording was legally permissible.