Kerala HC orders 20 Thiruvananthapuram BJP councillors to retake oath
Synopsis
For the first time in Kerala's history, the BJP controls Thiruvananthapuram Corporation — but its 20 councillors must now retake their oaths after a court found the original swearing-in, which invoked specific deity names rather than the prescribed statutory format, legally questionable. A CPI(M) councillor's petition has put the BJP's landmark civic win under judicial scrutiny.
Key Takeaways
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday ordered 20 BJP councillors of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to retake their oath within four weeks .
The case was filed by CPI(M) councillor S.P.
Deepak , who alleged the oaths were invalid as some councillors invoked specific deity names rather than following the prescribed statutory format.
The court had earlier noted that the law requires swearing in the name of God (singular) or making a solemn affirmation — not invoking multiple deities.
The court declined to restrain the councillors from attending meetings or drawing honorarium; they remain in office pending final resolution.
The BJP made history by capturing Thiruvananthapuram Corporation for the first time, ending over four decades of CPI(M) rule.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday directed 20 Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to retake their oath of office within four weeks, after a court challenge alleged that several of them had sworn in the names of specific deities rather than following the format prescribed under municipal rules. The order revives a politically sensitive dispute in the state capital that has been simmering since the beginning of the year.
Background to the Dispute
The controversy traces back to January 2025, when a division bench of the High Court issued notices to the councillors on a petition filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] councillor S.P. Deepak. Deepak challenged the validity of the oaths, arguing that swearing in the names of multiple gods and deities rendered them legally invalid under the statutory format governing elected representatives.
The court had previously observed that the prescribed format requires elected representatives either to swear in the name of God — in the singular — or to make a solemn affirmation. The bench had questioned how an oath invoking multiple deities could be treated as compliant with that format.
What the Court Ordered
Acting on the petition, the High Court on Wednesday directed all 20 BJP councillors to retake their oaths within four weeks. The court, however, declined an earlier interim plea by Deepak that would have restrained the councillors from attending corporation meetings and drawing honorarium pending the final outcome. The councillors have been allowed to continue in office, with the validity of their original oaths remaining subject to the case's final resolution.
What the Petitioner Said
S.P. Deepak said the order vindicated his contention that accepted norms and procedures governing the oath had been violated. According to him, some councillors had invoked the names of specific deities rather than adhering to the prescribed wording, which he argued was a procedural breach with legal consequences.
Political Significance
The dispute carries outsized political weight because the BJP, for the first time in Kerala's history, had captured the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation — ousting the CPI(M), which had held the civic body for over four decades. The oath controversy, initiated by a CPI(M) councillor, has been widely read as part of the broader political contest over the corporation. The court's direction to retake oaths stops short of invalidating the councillors' tenure but adds a layer of legal uncertainty to the BJP's landmark civic win.
The case is expected to return to court for a final hearing once the fresh oaths are administered.
Point of View
But it keeps the question of oath validity alive. What's notable is that the court declined to bar the councillors from functioning, which limits the immediate political damage. Yet the optics are uncomfortable for the BJP: a procedural misstep in the very act of assuming office, in a corporation they won for the first time in four decades, hands the CPI(M) a ready-made narrative. The deeper question — whether oath-taking procedures at the civic level are routinely scrutinised, or whether this petition reflects the intensity of political competition in the state capital — is one mainstream coverage has largely glossed over.
NationPress
24 Jun 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Kerala High Court order BJP councillors to retake their oath?
The court directed 20 BJP councillors of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to retake their oaths because a petition alleged they had sworn in the names of specific deities rather than following the statutory format, which requires swearing in the name of God (singular) or making a solemn affirmation. The court found the manner of the original oath-taking legally questionable.
Who filed the petition challenging the BJP councillors' oaths?
CPI(M) councillor S.P. Deepak filed the petition challenging the validity of the oaths taken by the 20 BJP councillors. He argued that invoking multiple deity names rendered the oaths legally invalid under municipal rules.
Can the BJP councillors continue to attend corporation meetings?
Yes. The court declined to grant an interim stay restraining the councillors from attending meetings or drawing honorarium. They remain in office, but the validity of their original oaths is subject to the final outcome of the case.
What is the political significance of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation oath row?
The BJP captured Thiruvananthapuram Corporation for the first time in Kerala's history, ending more than four decades of CPI(M) rule. The oath controversy, initiated by a CPI(M) councillor, has added legal uncertainty to that landmark win and is seen as part of the broader political contest over the civic body.
What happens next in the case?
The 20 BJP councillors are required to retake their oaths within four weeks as directed by the Kerala High Court. The case is expected to return for a final hearing thereafter, which will determine whether the original oaths were legally valid.
