Kerala High Court Puts Oath-Taking Violations on Fast Track: SEC to Probe Local Body Elected Reps

In a swift move on February 19, 2026 , a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. disposed of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) WP(PIL) No. 3 of 2026. The court directed the State Election Commission (SEC) to investigate and decide complaints alleging that newly elected representatives in Kerala's 2025 local body elections deviated from the prescribed oath formats. Petitioner Sabu Steephen, an activist appearing in person, spotlighted potential breaches of key statutes, urging judicial intervention to uphold electoral sanctity.

From Ballot Box to Oath Alterations: The Petitioner's Crusade

Sabu Steephen filed the PIL claiming elected councillors and members in panchayats and municipalities flouted mandatory oath provisions during swearing-in ceremonies post the 2025 Local Self Government Institution (LSGI) elections. He alleged violations of Section 22 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , Section 48 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 , and Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 , arguing that additions invoking religious or political influences tainted the post-election process. Exhibits included photos and reports of such ceremonies across Kerala districts, from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod.

The PIL named the SEC, State of Kerala ( LSG Department ), DGP , and all 17 District Collectors as respondents, highlighting systemic issues affecting dozens of elected members. Steephen referenced his prior election petition (Exhibit P1) dismissed by authorities, positioning the matter as a broader public interest concern.

Respondents Admit Complaints, But Push Back on Jurisdiction

The SEC's counter-affidavit acknowledged receiving six complaints—four from individuals and two from Returning Officers—involving around 26 elected members, though the petitioner contested the scale, citing one complaint covering 98 councillors (para 31). It admitted deviations but argued for legislative action on a code of conduct, deeming oath matters outside direct judicial purview absent specific laws.

The LSG Department concurred on violations, citing the mandatory nature of oaths under Section 152 & Schedule II of the Panchayat Raj Act and Section 143 & Schedule III of the Municipality Act , plus Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Oath) Rules, 1995 . They invoked Article 243 ( constitutional scheme for LSGIs), Articles 246(2)/(3) , and Lists II/III of the Seventh Schedule , emphasizing no room for "deviation, addition, substitution or embellishment." A key precedent, Haridasan Palayil v. Speaker of the 11th Kerala Legislative Assembly (AIR 2003 Kerala 328), was cited: unelected oaths bar sitting/voting and attract penalties.

Bench Balances Activism with Administrative Prudence

The court noted affected elected reps weren't impleaded, limiting merits review. It recognized SEC's duty to address admitted complaints under the constitutional framework, without opining on statutory applicability like RP Act Sec 123(3) (pre-election undue influence). The Bench clarified LSG oath rules govern, rooted in the 73rd Constitutional Amendment.

No broader judicial legislation was entertained; instead, procedural fairness was prioritized.

Key Observations

"the elected representatives have flouted Section 22 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , Section 48 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 "

"complaints, representations and reports have been received in respect of alleged deviations from the prescribed form of oath or affirmation taken by the elected members"

"under the constitutional scheme , 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"

"it is the duty [of SEC] to consider and decide the said complaints in accordance with the constitutional scheme "

Time-Bound Directive: SEC's Marching Orders

The court disposed the PIL with a clear mandate:

"directing the State Election Commission to consider and decide the complaints in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties, within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. A reasoned order shall be passed and communicated to the parties within one week thereafter."

The ruling sidesteps merits, empowering SEC as the "appropriate authority." Implications ripple through Kerala's LSGIs: compliant oaths could disqualify non-compliant reps from voting/sitting, per precedents, potentially triggering by-elections or penalties. This reinforces statutory rigidity in oath-taking, signaling courts' deference to specialized bodies while ensuring accountability in grassroots democracy. Future PILs may test SEC's decisions, but for now, Kerala's local poll watchdogs face a ticking clock.