Oaths in the name of Gurus? Kerala HC seeks clarity

The Kerala High Court has taken up a significant constitutional question on whether elected representatives can legally take their oath of office in the name of living persons, godmen or specific deities, instead of following the wording prescribed under law.

The issue arose after several newly elected councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation took their oath in the name of spiritual leaders, gurus and deities, rather than swearing “in the name of God” or making a “solemn affirmation” as provided under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. A writ petition was filed challenging the validity of these oaths, contending that the councillors had not complied with the statutory form of oath, and therefore had not legally assumed office. The petitioner argued that the law allows only two modes of oath-taking swearing in the name of “God”, or making a “solemn affirmation” without religious reference. Invoking the name of a living person, spiritual leader or a specific deity, it was argued, falls outside the scope of the law.

Admitting the petition, the Kerala High Court issued notice to the State Government, State Election Commission, and the councillors concerned. The court observed that while different individuals may have different concepts of God, the key question is whether a living person or godman can be equated with “God” for the purpose of taking an official oath, when the statute prescribes a specific format. The court said this issue requires detailed examination, as the oath is not a mere ritual but a legal prerequisite for holding public office.

An oath is a formal and mandatory promise taken by an elected or appointed public official before assuming office. By taking the oath, the office-holder pledges allegiance to the Constitution of India, faithful and honest discharge of duties, and commitment to the rule of law. Under the Indian constitutional framework, no elected representative can legally function without taking a valid oath. The Constitution makes oath-taking compulsory through several articles, including Article 99 for MPs, Article 188 for state legislators, Article 164 for ministers, Articles 60 and 69 for President and Vice-President, and Articles 124(6) and 219 for judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Local body representatives, such as municipal councillors, are governed by State laws, which also mandate oath-taking before assuming office.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that oath is mandatory, not optional, and when the law prescribes a specific form, it must be followed strictly. In earlier judgments, the apex court has ruled that defective or improper oaths can render a person’s participation in office legally questionable, though courts have allowed correction in certain circumstances by retaking the oath in proper form.

The outcome of the case could have wider implications for oath-taking practices across local bodies, the balance between personal belief and constitutional procedure, and the legal validity of actions taken by representatives who have not taken a proper oath. If the court ultimately finds the oaths invalid, the councillors may be required to retake the oath in the prescribed manner before continuing in office.

The High Court will hear responses from the State and the Election Commission before deciding whether the oaths, as taken, satisfy the requirements of law. Until then, the case remains a key test of how strictly constitutional and statutory procedures must be followed in a secular democracy.