( 1 ) ARTICLE 164 (1) of the Constitution of India lays down : "the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor".

( 2 ) WHETHER the High Court in exercise of its high prerogative writjurisdiction under Art. 276 of the Constitution would issue a writ of quo warranto or a writ by way of information in the nature of quo warranto declaring that the Chief Minister of the State, duly elected to the Legislative Assembly, appointed and sworn in by the Governor in accordance with clauses (1) and (3) of Art. 164 of the Constitution, has forfeited his right to continue in office on the grounds raised and the allegations made in the affidavit, is the important constitutional issue that arises for decision in this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE submission made by Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, was that the gravity of the charges levelled against the first respondent-Chief Minister, Sri N. T. Rama Rao, was so serious as to shock the conscience of the Court; this Court which was entitled to mould the relief in such manner as was most suited for furthering the ends of justice should not hesitate to declare that he (the Chief Minister) had forfeited his right to hold the office ; and no technical plea, either of locus standi or of justiciability, should be allowed to stand in the way of a decision being rendered on the merits of the case. He also added that the charges levelled against the Chief Minister remained unrebutted in spite of his having filed a counter-affidavit.

( 4 ) SRI K. Parasaran, the learned Attorney General, who appeared to assist the Court at our request, after having made an enlightening analysis of the constitutional scheme, expressed his opinion that normally Courts would not be justified in issuing a writ of quo warranto declaring that the chief Minister had forfeited his right to continue in office unless it was alleged and proved that he had incurred a disqualification as prescribed by the Constitution itself or any law made by the Parliament. To support his view, he referred us to the Full Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in k. M. Chandy vs. R. Balakrishna Pillai #1 which has been followed by a division Bench of the Kerala High Court in K. Sukumaran vs. Union Of india #2 and a single Bench of the Madras High Court in Ramachandran vs. M. G. Ranachandran. #3

( 5 ) ON behalf of the first respondent-Chief Minister, we have had the advantage of hearing the eminent counsel, Sri N. A. Palkhivala, who substantially concurred with the views expressed by the learned Attorney General in regard to the legal and constitutional position to which reference has already been made in paragraph 4 (supra ). In was also his contention that what we were concerned with here was purely a political interest lifigation, not a public interest litigation ; and that neither the petitioner had the locus standi to maintain the writ petition nor this Court had the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. The learned Advocate General, who appeared for the second respondent, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, had also taken the stand that the petition for the issue of quo warranto was not maintainable in law. On behalf of the three intervenors, Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, sri M. Narasiah and Sri K R. K. Vara Prasad advanced the arguments.

( 6 ) WE do not consider it necessary to decide the question of locus standi in this writ petition, in the nature of the decision we propose to take in the matter.

( 7 ) TNE disqualification for the Chief Minister to hold the office may exist at the threshold, for instance, on account of any of the disqualifications enumerated in Article 191 of the Constitution or when the Governor had not administered to him oaths of office-and secrecy before he entered upon his office as required under clauses (1) and (3) of Art. 16

Click Here to Read the rest of this document