Breach of oath by a Chief Minister does not render him disqualified to continue to hold office, and the High Court has no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of quo warranto or any other direction for his removal on that account.

B.C. VARMA, J.

1. The question in this writ petition is whether this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue a writ of quo warranto against a Chief Minister of his allegedly committing breach of the oath administered to him at the time of assuming office of the Chief Minister ?

2. After being duly elected as a member of the Haryana Legislative Assembly, Ch. Bhajan Lal, respondent No. 1, was lawfully appointed as the Chief Minister of the State of Haryana by the Governor of the State in exercise of the powers under Article 164(1) of the Constitution. Other Ministers were likewise appointed on the advice of the Chief Minister. The petitioner, Hardwari Lal, an ex-member of Parliament, has instituted an action through this writ petition against Ch. Bhajan Lal describing it is a public interest petition seeking in desperation to "exercise the realm of accountability" of a rapacious executive "to the people through the judiciary", with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto, directing removal of respondent No. 1 from the office of the Chief Minister. Numerous allegations have been levelled quoting the alleged misdeeds of respondent No. 1 which, according to the petitioner, unfailingly demonstrate that the Chief Minister has violated the oath of his office which he took at the time of assuming that office. We need not go into the truth or otherwise of those allegations because after notice, respondent No. 1, reserving his right to meet the allegations and charges has chosen only to file a skeleton affidavit questioning the petitioners right to approach this Court for the relief claimed and also the jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of quo warranto for the alleged breach of oath administered to him. Without, embarking, therefore, upon an enquiry as to the correctness of such allegations which for the purpose of present controversy may be assumed, we proceed to decide the legal question raised as a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this writ petition.

3. The question, whether the petitioner has the locus standi to approach this Court for the relief claimed need not detain us much although Shri Sibal, the learned Advocate-General, Haryana, appearing for the respondents, severely criticised the motive and purport behind this writ petition as political and only aimed at wreaking personal grievances by a political rival of the Chief Minister, yet we do not find that the locus standi of the petitioner to approach the court was seriously questioned. The substance of the respondents contention in this regard is that the Court shall not exercise any discretion in favour of a person who has approached this Court only with oblique motives has his own axe to grind against the respondent and, therefore, could not be permitted to have access to the Court under the garb of public interest litigation. We think that the antecedents or status of persons lose all significance if the information conveyed to the Court even by such a person is such as may justly require the Court to exercise its jurisdiction to pass orders and directions to protect the rights and liberties of the citizens. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in D. Satyanarayana V/s. N. T. Rama Rao, AIR 1988 Andhra Pradesh 144, observed that being politician by itself is no sin. In our democratic set up, Government is run by political parties voted to power by people. It is totally unrealistic to characterise any espousal of cause in a Court of law by a politician on behalf of the general public complaining of Constitutional and statutory violations by the political executive as a politically motivated adventure. If, however, the interests are not personal and the litigation appears to be for no personal gains, the person approaching the Court is not a busy body nor an interloper, the relief may not be denied and the petition may not be thrown out simply because it is by a politician. We,