A Chief Minister is not legally prohibited from engaging in non-official activities while in office unless explicitly stated in law, reflecting constitutional protections for freedom of speech and expression.

1. In the elections held to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Andhra Pradesh in early 1983, and again in late 1984, the Telugu Desam Party, headed by Sri N.T. Rama Rao (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent"), captured a majority of seats. Sri N. T. Rama Rao became the Chief Minister. The term of the Legislative Assembly is coming to an end in or about Dec., 1989 March, 1990.

2. In Jan., 1987, the respondent made a statement that he is going to act in a Telugu movie, styled "Brahmarishi Viswamithra" as "Viswamithra". Immediately thereupon, W.P. No. 310; 1987 was filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus "restraining the respondent herein from enacting in any films including 'Brahmarishi Viswamithra' while in office as the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh as he is a 'public servant' of State of Andhra Pradesh…..." The petitioner is a practising advocate at Narasaraopet. He is an elector and also the Organizing Secretary of District Youth Congress, Guntur District. The main allegations in his writ petition are: -
In Jan. 1987 the Government of Andhra Pradesh announced that elections will take place to Mandal Praja Parishads in the State on 15-3-1987. Prior to his entering the politics in 1982, the respondent was in cine - field. He was elected and came to power "only due to the film glamour the respondent enjoyed with the illiterate and gullible masses. However, during the three years of his stewardship, the respondent found that people have lost faith in his party. With a view to recapture the votes of illiterate and guillible public, he has hit upon a plan to enter cinema field again. Accordingly, he made a statement on 12-11987 that he is going to play the part of `Viswamithra' in a Telgu movie "Brahmarishi Viswamithra". "The respondent is the sole Director, Producer, Editor, and also the Hero and his son Sri Balakrishna to enact three roles of Sri Rama, Dushyanatha, and Satya Harishchandra". The respondent is a "public servant" as defined in S.21(12) of the Indian Penal Code , and is amenable to the jurisdiction of Criminal courts for his acts, misdeeds, and omissions committed by him while in office. The Supreme Court has also held that Chief Minister is a "public servant", in AIR 1975 SC 1685 . The office of Chief Minister is a full - time post. A Chief Minister should be accessible to the public as a full - time public servant all the 24 hours. As a matter of fact, there is no provision for a Chief Minister "to go on casual leave, sick leave, earned leave and the other benefits available to the other public servants". By entering the cinema - field the respondent is not only promoting the interests of his party but is also augmenting the resources of his party. He is doing it by misusing his official position. The picture Brahmarishi Viswamithra is to be inaugurated on 22-1-1987 at 12-00 Noon, according to the respondent's statement made on 16-1-1987, published in all local papers on the next day. It is therefore necessary to issue a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent from acting in any films including "Brahmarishi Viswamithra". The writ petition was filed on 19-1-1987. It was admitted on 20-1-1987.

3. Along with W.P. No. 310/87 the petitioner filed W.P.M.P. No.360/87 for an interim direction restraining the respondent from acting in the said film. Notice was directed to the respondent, who appeared and filed a counter, common to the writ petition as well as the Miscellaneous Petition. In this counter - affidavit the respondent made the following submissions: -
The writ petition is politically motivated and is, accordingly, liable to be rejected in limine. The Chief Minister may be a "public servant" within the meaning of S.21 of the Indian Penal Code , but that aspect has no relevance to the issue in question. There is no law prohibiting a Chief Minister from acting in films. The several allegations made in the writ affidavit are highly irresponsible and wholly irrelevant. There will not b