Mandate Can't Be Massacred: Kerala HC Allows Detained Councillor To Take Oath In Jail

Kerala: The Kerala High Court has permitted a newly-elected Thiruvananthapuram Corporation Councillor, presently under preventive detention, to take his oath of office from inside the Central Prison, Viyyur, holding that the people's mandate cannot be allowed to collapse over a procedural formality. 

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was hearing a writ petition filed by Sugathan R, an elected Councillor from Ward No.20 (Vazhottukonam) of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation, who could not appear for his scheduled swearing-in on account of being held under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 ('KAAPA').

The petitioner had earlier taken oath as Councillor on 21.12.2025, but the High Court, in an earlier judgment dated 24.06.2026, had held that the oath administered to him and certain other councillors was not in accordance with the Kerala Municipality Act, directing that a fresh oath be taken within four weeks. While the other councillors complied and took the fresh oath, the petitioner could not do so, having in the meantime been taken into preventive detention under the KAAPA. When the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation fixed the swearing-in ceremony for 14.07.2026, the petitioner approached the court seeking to be produced for the ceremony or, alternatively, for appropriate directions enabling him to take the oath.

The Director General of Prosecution, appearing for the State, submitted that since the petitioner was under preventive detention, the court could not direct his release to attend the ceremony outside jail, and drew the court's attention to Article 22(3) of the Constitution, under which the safeguards in Article 22(1) and (2) do not extend to persons held under preventive detention. However, it was submitted that the State was willing to make arrangements for the oath to be administered inside the prison itself, if the court so directed.

The court noted that if the petitioner were unable to take oath, it could even alter the majority of the ruling party in the Corporation, and considered whether it should step in to protect the electoral mandate underlying his election. Emphasising that democracy requires the people's mandate to be respected, and clarifying that its earlier judgment was never intended to undermine democratic outcomes, the court observed:

“While issuing directions by this Court as per Ext.P1 judgment, this Court neither conceived nor intended to massacre democracy; rather, the directions are issued in the background of the constitutional mandate to preserve and strengthen the rule of law.”

The court held that although its intention was only to ensure that democratic procedures are strictly followed, the people's mandate could not be allowed to be defeated by a procedural lapse, and that extraordinary situations call for extraordinary judicial remedies. It observed:

“The people's mandate cannot be massacred by a procedural lapse. The petitioner accepts the directions in the Ext P1 judgment. Then what is the remedy? When extraordinary situations arise, this Court must take extraordinary decisions to protect democratic principles and the people's mandate.”

Accordingly, the court directed the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, to make arrangements for the petitioner's swearing-in ceremony to be conducted inside the prison on 14.07.2026 at 11 a.m. 

The Mayor of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and the minimum required officers of the Corporation were permitted to enter the jail premises to complete the procedure, and, noting that the swearing-in of a councillor forms part of the democratic process, the court further directed that accredited media persons be allowed to cover the ceremony.

Appearances: Shri Suvin R. Menon, Shri P. Vijayakumar, Shri T.C. Krishna, Smt. Parshathy S.R., Shri Govind P., Shri Achuth Krishnan R. and Smt. Cristy Theresa Suresh, Advocates for the Petitioner; Sri T. Asaf Ali, Director General of Prosecution, for Respondents 1, 4 to 6; Sri R.V. Srrejith, Standing Counsel, for Respondents 2 and 3.

Case Title: Sugathan R v. State of Kerala & Ors., WP(C) No. 23803 of 2026