The High Court of Kerala has recently made headlines with its landmark judgment that nullified the oaths taken by the elected councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation. These oaths were invalidated because they did not adhere to the constitutionally prescribed format. Instead of swearing ‘in the name of God’, as required, councillors opted to swear by local deities, ‘Bharat Matha’, ‘Gurudeva’, and even martyrs of political movements.
Following the court’s decision, the councillors promptly took the correct oath ‘in the name of God’, enabling them to legally function in their roles. This scenario underscores the importance of the constitutional mandate for oath-taking by various officials before assuming office. The prescribed oath can be either ‘to swear in the name of God’ or ‘solemnly affirm’, providing an option for those who do not believe in a deity.
The framers of the Indian Constitution deliberately chose the term ‘God’ to ensure inclusivity, as it is not linked to any specific religion or class but is a reference to a higher power. The Constitution explicitly outlines the oath forms for the President, Vice-President, and State Governors within its articles, while the oaths for Supreme Court and High Court Judges, Ministers, and Legislators are detailed in the Third Schedule.
Taking and subscribing to these oaths is not just a ceremonial task; it is a vital legal requirement that must be fulfilled to officially assume office. The importance of strict adherence to the prescribed format cannot be overstated, and any deviation renders the oath invalid, thereby preventing the official from assuming their position.
Recently, there has been a noticeable trend among politicians to modify the text of their oaths, swearing by their preferred deities, influential figures, or even groups like farmers or laborers. Such deviations are a direct affront to the Constitution, as they contradict the very act of allegiance that the oath signifies. While the symbolism of holding a copy of the Constitution is powerful, true respect is demonstrated through compliance and fidelity to its mandates.
The Kerala High Court’s decision to invalidate non-compliant oaths is a crucial reaffirmation of constitutional integrity. The judgment in question, S.P. Deepak v. Kerala State Election Commissioner & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:45209), delivered by Justice PV Kunhikrishnan, elucidates the necessity of adhering to the prescribed oath format and the legal ramifications of deviations.
This judgment serves as a clarion call for all constitutional functionaries to familiarize themselves with its contents to better understand the significance of the oath-taking process. It also highlights the responsibility of those administering the oath to ensure compliance. Any deviation should be immediately rejected, with a record made to nullify the oath-taker’s ability to assume office.
It is anticipated that other High Courts will align with this verdict, and that the Supreme Court will eventually endorse this interpretation, reinforcing the sanctity of the constitutional oath.
B.V. Acharya, a Senior Advocate based in Bengaluru, provides insights into the implications of this pivotal judgment.
