The court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto against the respondents for violating their oath of office and does not have the jurisdiction to disqualify the respondents from holding the office of Members of Parliament.

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

The petitioner, a house wife has approached this Court seeking a writ of quo warranto or for appropriate writ, order or direction, to the second and third respondents to show cause under what authority they are holding the seat of the Members of the Parliament after violating the oath of office and further seek to disqualify them from holding the office of Members of Parliament. Though 2nd and 3rd respondents are mentioned in the relief portion, there are only two respondents in the Original Petition, they are Mr. Sharad Yadav, Working President of Janata Dal, New Delhi and Mr.Tasleemuddin, member of Janata Dal, New Delhi. Both of them are Members of Parliament residing in New Delhi, not residing within the jurisdiction of this Court. There are no other respondents in the Original Petition than these two Members of Parliament. The petitioner submits that when a bill was introduced in the Parliament in order to provide reservation in elected posts for women in India, these two persons prevented the bill being introduced in the Parliament. The petitioner got this knowledge from Ext. P1 paper report. The petitioner submits that Art.51A(e) enjoins on every citizen a fundamental duty to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women and that the first respondent has proved that his practice is against it. It is submitted that the duty of every member when a bill is introduced is to pass or object it and shall not obstruct it. Therefore, it is submitted that the "respondents have violated their oath of office and failed to uphold the unity, integrity of the nation by speaking against women in Parliament and by preventing a Bill of crucial importance from being moved for discussion, debate and approval. By their conduct and demeanour, the respondents have committed breach of oath of allegiance to the Constitution and due discharge of the duties of their seat which they hold and thus have lost their claim to hold their respective seats and office in the Parliament." On its basis the petitioner seeks a writ of quo warranto against the respondents for violating the oath of office.

2. Full Bench of this Court in K. C. Chandy v. R. Balakrishna Pillai (1985 KLT 62) held as follows: "Breach of oath requires a termination of the tenure of office. This power can be exercised by the appointing authority under the Constitution, and according to the procedure, it any, prescribed therein. The termination of that tenure is not the function of a court; and it would not be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Art.226 in such cases. Proceedings under Art.226 in such cases do not lie. It was Jefferson who said:

"Our peculiar security is LQ the possession of a written Constitution; let us not make it a blank paper by construction" (Government by Judiciary-Rasul berger-p. 304).

The question as to whether there was breach of oaths of office and of secrecy committed by a Minister is outside judicial review under Art.226 of the Constitution. It is to be decided that in other appropriate forums; and the case of the Minister in a State, it falls within the discretionary domains of Chief Minister, and/or the Governor."

That dictum apply to this case also. The only ground on which the petitioner seeks the writ of quo warranto is the violation of oath which this Court cannot decide upon.

3. The petitioner also seeks a direction to disqualify the respondents from holding the office of the Members of Parliament. That is not a function enjoined on this court exercising the powers under Art.226. Apart from that this court has no jurisdiction to

"Every High Court shall have power throughout the territories in relation to which it

exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority within those territories directions, orders or writs....".

The address of the respondents shown in the petition shows that they are residing outside of the territories in relation to which this Court exercises its jurisdiction. The constituenci