Honble RAFIQ, J.–Kashi Purohit, a resident of Jaipur, claiming himself to be a public spirited person, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, praying for a mandamus to be issued to the Governor of the State of Rajasthan, to refer the question of disqualification of Ministers of the State of Rajasthan and the Members of the Legislative Assembly referred to in paras 10 to 16 of the petition for having committed breach of the oath of their office. Earlier than approaching this Court, the petitioner had filed a petition before the Governor of the State of Rajasthan under Article 192 read with Articles 173 (a), 188 and 190 and 191 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, on the premises that the certain Ministers of his government, namely, Shri Kalu Lal Gurjar, M.L.A. & Minister of Development and Panchayati Raj; Shri Kanak Mal Katara, M.L.A. & Minister of Women and Child Development and Janjati Vikas; Dr.Kirori Lal Meena, M.L.A. & Minister for Food and Supplies, Shir Virendra Meena, M.L.A. & State Minister for Finance and members of Legislative Assembly, namely, Shri Ram Chandra Sarardhana, M.L.A.; Shri Prahlad Gunjal, M.L.A.; Shri Atar Singh Bhadana, M.L.A.; Shri Govind Singh Gurjar, M.L.A.; Shri Hargyan Singh Gurjar, M.L.A.; Shri Nathu Singh Gurjar, M.L.A.; Shri Data Ram Gurjar, M.L.A.; Shir Raghuveer Meena, M.L.A.; Shri Murari Lal Meena, M.L.A.; Shri Hemraj Meena, M.L.A.; Shri Nandlal Meena, M.L.A.; Shri Madan Mohan Singhal, M.L.A.; Smt.Divya Singh, M.L.A. and Shri Kanhaiya Lal Meena, M.L.A. be declared disqualified for holding such office/s for having committed breach of the oath of office which they subscribed while taking oath as such, in view of the provisions contained in Article 191 of the Constitution of India, as, according to the petitioner, they have lost faith reposed in them by their constituencies. It was further prayed that their respective assembly constituencies should be declared as vacant and the Election Commission be directed to conduct fresh elections therefor.

(2). According to the petitioner, India being a secular country, the spirit of equal respect for all religions and castes by the members of the Legislative Assembly, is the basic feature of its Constitution. This basic feature finds its pragmatic position in the form of Article 173 and 188 of the Constitution of India read with preamble of the Constitution and the form of oath prescribed in its Schedule III which is administered to the Members of the Legislative Assembly and the Ministers. It is contended that a citizen casts his vote believing that the candidates offering their candidature at the election to the office of Member of the Legislative Assembly will show no favour or affection to any caste, creed or religion, nor will they have any inclination for or ill-will against, any particular caste, creed or religion. This being the picture depicted before a voter at the time of elections, he opts to exercise his franchise of assigning the authority in a particular candidate to hold this office of public nature. Sole object, intention and rationale behind and reasons for the prescription of a form of the oath in the Constitution is to foster unity in diversity so as to preserve the integrity of India by making the elected representatives to subscribe to the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and to uphold sovereignty and integrity of the country as a Member of the Legislative Assembly or the Parliament. He is the spokesman of all the people belonging to his constituency and he must therefore stand for all, irrespective of their shades of faith and religion. He is the peoples representative. He does not merely represent a particular caste. He is bound to inspire equal confidence in the minds of all, irrespective of their caste or creed, faith or religion, for he holds the office under an oath to maintain national harmony. According to the petitioner, the controversy began in the last week of May, 2007 when members of Gur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document