Kerala High Court Directs State Election Commission Must Decide Oath-Deviation Complaints Of Local Body Representatives Within Four Weeks
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. on 19 February directed the State Election Commission to consider and decide, in accordance with law, complaints alleging deviations from the prescribed statutory form of oath or affirmation taken by elected members of Local Self Government Institutions after the 2025 local body elections, within four weeks of communication of the order. Disposing of a public interest petition filed by a petitioner appearing in person, the Bench said the Commission must hear affected parties and issue a reasoned decision, while clarifying that it had not examined the merits of the allegations.
The writ petition was filed as a public interest litigation by a petitioner appearing in person, claiming to be an activist. The petitioner alleged violation of statutory provisions under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, contending that elected representatives of Local Self Government Institutions had flouted the prescribed form of oath during oath-taking ceremonies. It was alleged that 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 were violated, including by extending undue religious and political elements to post-election functions.
Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Directions For Enforcement Of Solid Waste Management Rules 2026
The Court had earlier directed the State Election Commission and the Local Self Government Department to file counter affidavits. The State Election Commission admitted receipt of complaints and representations regarding deviations from the prescribed oath, referring to six complaints involving about 26 members, while the petitioner contended that one complaint involved about 98 elected Councillors. The Local Self Government Department acknowledged violations of prescribed statutory norms and referred to relevant statutory provisions and rules governing oath-taking by elected representatives.
The Bench recorded that “In the writ petition, the petitioner claims himself to be essentially an activist appearing in person.” It noted that the petitioner had alleged “violation of statutory provisions under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, including the breach of sanctity of oath-taking ceremonies of elected representatives in Local Self Government Institutions, on the ground that the prescribed form of oath has been flouted.”
The Court observed that “the persons likely to be affected by any order that are to be passed in the proceedings have not been made parties.” It further recorded that 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 taken by the elected members.” The affidavit “refers to six complaints – four by the individuals and 2 by Returning Officers – involving about 26 members elected to various local bodies.”
With respect to the affidavit of the Local Self Government Department, the Court noted that “there have been violations of the prescribed statutory norms concerning oath to be taken in terms of the aforesaid Acts.” The Court also recorded the submission that “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, addition, substitution or embellishment of the prescribed format.” It was further stated that “such prescription is mandatory and cannot be diluted.”
The Court took note of the State Election Commission’s contention that “in areas left unoccupied by legislation, there is a need for framing of code of conduct for elected members of Local Self Government Institutions to be followed during the oath-taking ceremonies and that such matters fall within the domain of the Legislature.” However, it recorded that “the State Election Commission has not denied having received the complaints enumerated in Paragraph 31 of the affidavit and it is the duty to consider and decide the said complaints in accordance with the constitutional scheme.”
The Bench clarified its position by stating, “We make it clear that we have not gone into merits of the matter, as we are of the view that the State Election Commission is the appropriate authority to decide the said complaints in accordance with law and after taking into consideration the various statutory provisions referred to in the affidavits filed by the parties.” It further stated, “At this stage, we express no opinion on the applicability of such provisions.”
The Court directed that “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 writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Respondents: Shri. Deepu Lal Mohan, Standing Counsel for State Election Commission; Government Pleader; Smt. K.R. Deepa, Special Government Pleader
Case Title: Sabu Stephen v. State Election Commission Kerala & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:15151
Case Number: WP(PIL) No. 3 of 2026
Bench: Chief Justice Soumen Sen, Justice Syam Kumar V.M.
