Upholding the Sanctity of Office: Kerala High Court Intervenes on Oath-Taking Irregularities

In a significant development concerning the integrity of local governance, the High Court of Kerala has directed the State Election Commission to address allegations of procedural lapses during the oath-taking ceremonies of elected representatives. The order, passed by a bench consisting of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., mandates a time-bound resolution to disputes surrounding whether representatives complied with the strictly prescribed forms of oath.

The Backdrop: A Question of Statutory Compliance

The dispute arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by petitioner Sabu Steephen, who alleged that various elected members of Local Self-Government Institutions (LSGIs) had flouted statutory norms during their induction following the 2025 elections. The petition claimed that several representatives introduced unauthorized religious or political elements into the solemnity of the oath-taking ceremony, in direct violation of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , the * Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 , and provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 *.

The petitioner argued that such deviations undermine the sanctity of legal requirements, effectively treating the oath—a mandatory constitutional prerequisite—as a discretionary exercise.

Conflicting Perspectives and Administrative Accountability

The litigation brought two primary state organs into focus: the State Election Commission (SEC) and the Local Self-Government Department.

The Local Self-Government Department acknowledged that deviations had indeed occurred, emphasizing that there is "no scope for deviation, addition, substitution or embellishment of the prescribed format" under the constitutional scheme. Citing the precedent laid down in Haridasan Palayil v. The Speaker of the 11th Kerala Legislative Assembly , the department noted that an elected member who fails to take the oath according to the law is disqualified from sitting or voting in the legislature.

Conversely, while the State Election Commission did not deny receiving complaints regarding approximately 26 members across various bodies, it contended that the formulation of codes of conduct for such ceremonies falls within the legislative domain and suggested no direct relief could be granted by the court at this stage.

Key Observations

The bench refrained from adjudicating on the merits of the allegations, choosing instead to empower the competent statutory authority to resolve the impasse. Notable observations from the judgment include:

• "There is no provision permitting oath to be taken in any form or manner not sanctioned by law and that there is no scope for deviation, addition, substitution or embellishment of the prescribed format."
• "In the counter affidavit filed by the State Election Commission, it is admitted that complaints, representations and reports have been received in respect of alleged deviations from the prescribed form of oath or affirmation."
• "We are of the view that the State Election Commission is the appropriate authority to decide the said complaints in accordance with law."

The Road Ahead for the Election Commission

The High Court has directed the State Election Commission to process the pending complaints within four weeks. The process must include a reasonable opportunity for a hearing for the parties involved, culminating in a reasoned order to be delivered within one week thereafter.

By entrusting the decision to the SEC, the Court has reinforced the principle of institutional accountability. This case serves as a stern reminder to elected officials across all tiers of government that the oath administered upon assuming office is not a mere formality but a rigid statutory requirement, essential to the maintenance of democratic propriety. While this ruling focuses on local bodies, its implications regarding strict adherence to legislative and constitutional mandates are likely to resonate across the electoral landscape in Kerala.