Setback for BJP, High Court declares oath of 20 councilors of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation invalid

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Kerala High Court has declared the oath taken by 20 councilors of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation as invalid. The councilors took the oath of office in violation of rules and ordered them to swear-in again within four weeks.

The oath taken by Vishnumohan (Pangode), Asha Nath (Karumam), Harikumar (Fort), Deepa S Nair (Perunthanni), Sukanya (Sreekandeswaram), Jaya Rajeev (Kadakampally), Sunil (Attipra), Advocate Mini (Aakkulam), Vayalkkara Ratheesh (Poongulam), Vinod (Cheruvakkal), Gopa Kumar (Thiruvallom) Sudhi S S (Attukal), V Giri (Kamaleswaram), Saritha P (Manacaud), Udayan (Mannanthala), Sugathan (Vazhottukonam), Surya (Valiyasala), Sreedevi (Ponnumangalam), Pappanamcode Saji (Melamkode), Beena (Nedungad) was made invalid.

CPM councilor S P Deepkak approached the high court in this regard. His plea demanded to direct the opponent councilors to swear in legally within the stipulated time and till then they should be barred from the council. The councilors swore in the name of deities, organizations and martyrs. He also questioned their voting in the mayoral election.

The BJP councilors took the oath in the name of Lord Ayyappa, Kavilamma, Attukalamma, Bharatamba, Sree Padmanabhan, Gurudevan, martyrs, etc. The plea argued that this was a violation of Section 143 of the Kerala Municipality Act. As per law, only a solemn oath or affirmation in the name of God is permitted.

Deepak pointing the violation of rules after the BJP councilors taking oath in the name of gods just before the voting, had led to a dispute. However, Collector Anukumari pointed that any objection should have been raised at the time of taking oath. The BJP members received this by clapping their hands. The Collector had directed that after taking the oath, they became members by signing the forms and attending the meeting and that he could approach the court if had any further complaints. Deepak then approached the high court.

The high court then sought an explanation from 20 councilors. During hearing, the court had pointed out that the view of God is different. There are people who worship living persons, gurus or godmen. They cannot be blamed for this. However, who is God in their view? Is it legal to take oaths in the name of gods and other people? The court clarified that it is necessary to examine the issues in detail. However, when the argument was completed, the high court invalidated the oath-taking.