Kerala High Court Requests SEC Response on Oath Validity of 20 BJP Councillors in Thiruvananthapuram

The Kerala High Court has requested the State Election Commission's view on the validity of oaths taken by 20 BJP councillors in Thiruvananthapuram, highlighting concerns over the names invoked during the oath-taking process.

The Kerala High Court has requested responses from the State Election Commission and the Kerala government regarding a plea. This plea challenges the validity of the oath taken by 20 out of 50 BJP councillors elected in the Thiruvananthapuram corporation poll. Justice P V Kunhikrishnan has also issued notices to these councillors.

The plea argues that the councillors took their oaths using phrases like "Gurudeva Namathil," "Udayannoor Deviyude Namathil," and others. According to the Third Schedule of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, oaths should be taken in the name of God or solemnly affirmed. The court acknowledged that this argument holds some weight.

Oath Validity Questioned

The court noted that individuals may have different interpretations of God, which could include living persons or spiritual leaders. Justice Kunhikrishnan highlighted that while personal beliefs are respected, whether an oath can be taken in such names is a significant question. The court admitted the writ petition, indicating an arguable case presented by the petitioner.

The court further stated that the outcome of this writ petition would determine the validity of the oaths taken by these 20 councillors. This legal challenge comes after the BJP gained control of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation from the LDF, which had governed for 45 years.

Justice Kunhikrishnan expressed that it is crucial to decide if taking an oath in the name of a living person or a personal guru is permissible. The court's decision will clarify whether such practices align with legal requirements. This issue underscores the complexity of balancing personal beliefs with statutory obligations.

The High Court's intervention highlights a broader debate on how religious and personal beliefs intersect with legal frameworks. As this case unfolds, it will provide insights into how diverse interpretations of God are accommodated within legal systems.

With inputs from PTI