Introduction:

The Kerala High Court, in Sugathan R v. State of Kerala and Others (WP(C) No. 23803 of 2026), reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 370, delivered a significant judgment balancing the rule of law with democratic principles. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan held that although a person detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) cannot be released from prison merely to attend an oath-taking ceremony, the constitutional value of respecting the people’s electoral mandate requires that such an elected representative be allowed to take the statutory oath from inside the prison.

The petitioner, Sugathan R., a BJP Councillor elected from Ward No. 20 (Vazhottukonam) in the 2025 Thiruvananthapuram local body elections, approached the High Court after being prevented from taking the oath of office. He had initially taken oath on 21 December 2025 after his election. However, that oath was subsequently declared invalid by the High Court because he had modified the statutory form of oath by invoking a specific deity and other references, which the Court had earlier held to be impermissible. Consequently, all affected elected representatives were directed to take the oath afresh.

Before the fresh oath-taking ceremony scheduled on 24 June 2026, the petitioner was detained under the provisions of the KAAPA and was therefore unable to participate. A fresh ceremony was fixed for 14 July 2026. Although the Magistrate granted him interim bail to enable him to attend the ceremony, the prison authorities declined to release him on the ground that a preventive detainee under the KAAPA could not be released in that manner. Faced with this situation, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking appropriate directions to safeguard both his democratic mandate and his right to assume office as an elected councillor.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner contended that he had been duly elected by the people of his ward and that the inability to retake the statutory oath was solely the result of his preventive detention. He argued that despite obtaining interim bail from the Magistrate specifically for attending the oath-taking ceremony, the State authorities had failed to take any effective decision regarding his temporary release. According to the petitioner, denying him the opportunity to take the oath would effectively nullify the mandate given by the electorate and would also adversely affect the functioning of the Municipal Corporation.

The petitioner therefore requested the High Court to ensure that he was afforded a reasonable opportunity to complete the statutory requirement of taking the oath, either by facilitating his temporary release or by adopting any other legally permissible mechanism that would preserve both the law governing preventive detention and the democratic rights of the electorate.

The State opposed the request for temporary release. The Director General of Police informed the Court that a person detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act could not be released from prison merely for attending the swearing-in ceremony. According to the State, the provisions governing preventive detention did not permit such release, and therefore the authorities were legally restrained from allowing the petitioner to leave the prison for the purpose of taking the oath.

While maintaining this legal position, the State left it to the Court to consider any alternative arrangement that would remain consistent with the statutory framework governing preventive detention.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court adopted a balanced constitutional approach by refusing to direct the petitioner’s release from custody while simultaneously ensuring that the democratic mandate of the electorate was not frustrated.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that since the petitioner continued to be under valid preventive detention under the KAAPA, the Court could not order his temporary release solely for attending the swearing-in ceremony. The statutory framework governing preventive detention had to be respected, and the Court declined to interfere with the detention order for this limited purpose.

However, the Court emphasized that the issue did not end there. It observed that democracy derives its legitimacy from the will of the people, and courts have a constitutional obligation to ensure that procedural obstacles do not unnecessarily defeat the mandate expressed by the electorate. The Bench remarked that an elected representative should not lose the opportunity to assume office merely because of circumstances that could reasonably be addressed without violating the law.

The Court also took note of the submission that if the petitioner failed to take the oath, the existing political majority in the Municipal Corporation could be affected. While clarifying that its decision was not based upon political considerations, the Court observed that the larger constitutional principle involved was the preservation of democratic governance and the protection of the people’s electoral choice.

Emphasizing that “people’s mandate cannot be massacred by a procedural lapse,” the Court held that the constitutional obligation to uphold democracy required a practical solution. It therefore directed the Superintendent of Viyyur Central Prison to make all necessary arrangements for administering the statutory oath inside the prison premises at 11:00 a.m. on 14 July 2026.

To ensure that the statutory procedure was properly completed, the Court directed that the Mayor of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, along with the minimum number of officials required to administer the oath, be permitted to enter the prison for conducting the ceremony. It further directed that accredited media personnel should also be allowed access to witness and report the proceedings, thereby maintaining transparency in the process.

The Court held that such an arrangement achieved a proper balance between two equally important constitutional objectives. On one hand, it preserved the legality of the petitioner’s preventive detention by declining to order his release. On the other hand, it protected the democratic rights of the electorate by ensuring that the elected councillor could validly assume office through the administration of the statutory oath within the prison itself.

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with directions to conduct the oath-taking ceremony inside Viyyur Central Prison. The judgment stands as an important reaffirmation that while courts must respect statutory restrictions governing preventive detention, they must also ensure that procedural requirements are implemented in a manner that strengthens, rather than weakens, democratic institutions. It underscores that constitutional courts must adopt practical solutions where possible so that the will of the people expressed through free elections is not defeated by avoidable procedural hurdles.