A formal complaint has been lodged with the Kerala government, challenging the validity of oaths administered to newly elected local body members. The complaint alleges serious deviations from the legally prescribed format during the swearing-in ceremonies held on Sunday.
Legal Challenge Filed by Supreme Court Lawyer
Supreme Court lawyer Subhash Theekkadan has submitted a detailed complaint to the principal secretary of the state's Local Self Government Department (LSGD). The core allegation is that several newly elected members took their oath of office in the name of religious and historical personalities, thereby materially deviating from the statutory form mandated under Kerala's municipal and panchayat laws.
Theekkadan's letter specifically points to reports of members invoking names such as Bharat Mata, Lord Ayyappan, Lord Ram, Ayyankali, and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. He argues that such substitutions render the oaths legally invalid.
The Principle of Strict Compliance
The lawyer's argument hinges on a fundamental legal principle. He emphasizes that when the Constitution or a statute prescribes a specific form for an oath or affirmation, strict compliance is mandatory. Any substitution, addition, or material departure from this prescribed form is not permissible and nullifies the oath itself.
In his communication, Theekkadan cited the Supreme Court's stance to bolster his case. He referenced the judgment in Union of India vs Madan Gopal, where the apex court held that where a form is prescribed, strict compliance is required. The court noted that substantial compliance is insufficient when the form goes to the very root of the authority being conferred.
"In the Name of God" vs. Named Personages
A key distinction raised in the complaint addresses the statutory option of swearing "in the name of God." Theekkadan contends that taking an oath in the name of a specific religious or historical figure is not equivalent to this generic option. He asserts that invoking a named personage amounts to a substitution of the prescribed form, not a permissible variation.
Based on these arguments, the lawyer has demanded that the LSGD issue directions declaring the concerned oaths invalid. His primary demand is that the affected members be required to retake their oath strictly in the exact statutory form as laid down by law, ensuring no deviations.
The complaint puts the spotlight on procedural rigor in the democratic process, setting the stage for a potential administrative or legal review of the oath-taking ceremonies that marked the beginning of the new term for local bodies across Kerala.
