The breach of oath by a Minister is not a disqualification specified in the Constitution or under any law made by Parliament. The question of breach of oaths of office and of secrecy committed by a Minister is outside judicial review under Art.226 of the Constitution and falls within the discretionary domain of the Chief Minister and/or the Governor. A writ of quo warranto cannot be issued in cases where a post is held 'at pleasure', and the resignation of the Minister renders the writ petition infructuous.

(for himself & Bhaskaran Nambiar J.)

1. According to the petitioner, on May 25, 1985, at a public meeting at Ernakulam, the respondent, then a Minister in the Kerala Cabinet, incited the people to resort to terrorism and to wage a war against the Union of India on the 'Punjab model', to achieve their objectives. On June 4, 1985, the petitioner,' who is stated to be a citizen who believes in upholding the sovereignty and integrity of the country, filed this writ for the issue of an information in the nature of quo warranto preventing the respondent from exercising the authority of his office, on the ground that the public speech alleged to have been made by him on May 25,1985, amounted to breach of oath taken by him at the time of his assuming the office of the Minister, and, therefore, he had forfeited his right to continue in that office. On June 5, 1985, the learned judge before whom the writ petition came up for admission, ordered issue of notice, making, at the same time, some observations. On the same day, the respondent tendered his resignation which was accepted by the Governor. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, he has denied the allegation that he incited the people to wage a war against the Union of India on the 'Punjab model', for achieving their objective. Ext. P-1 is a copy of the 'Financial Express' dated 3-6-1985 carrying the report of the speech alleged to have been made by the respondent on May 25,1985.

2. The main questions that fall for decision in this writ petition are: (1) whether breach of oath committed by a Minister would be a constitutional impediment for his continuance in office; and (2) whether, in such circumstances, a writ of quo warranto or an information in the nature of quo warranto would be issued from this Court.

3. Art.164 (3) of the Constitution lays down:

"Before a Minister enters upon his office, the Governor shall administer to him the oaths of office and of secrecy according to the Forms set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule."

Article 191 of the Constitution prescribes disqualification for membership in the Legislative Assembly of the States and Art.192 details the procedure for deciding the disputes in respect of those disqualifications. The power of the Governor under Art.192 is thus attracted only in those cases where Art.191 could be applied. Art.191 and 192, therefore, constitute a composite machinery for the purpose of disqualifying a member of the Legislature under the Constitution.

4. So.far as a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council is concerned, penalty for sitting and voting before making oath of affirmation under Art.188, is provided in Art.193 of the Constitution, which lays down, inter alia, that such a person shall be liable in respect of each day on which he so sits or votes, to a penalty of five hundred rupees to be recovered as a debt due to the State. The Constitution, however, is silent as to the penalty to which a Minister would be liable if he enters upon office without taking oath. So also, there appears to be no express provision in the Constitution which attaches specifically any disqualification to the Minister who commits breach of his oath.

5. In fact, as far as we could see, breach of oath of office is not a disqualification specified in the Constitution or under any law made by Parliament. Even then, it could not be assumed that there is no sanctity to the oath taken before assumption of office or that there is no authority to take action if there is a violation of that oath. Art.164 (3) insists that no Minister could enter upon his office unless the Governor administers to him the oaths of office and of secrecy. The constitutional requirement of an oath before assumption of office could not thus be created merely as 'an additional moral obligation' (as stated by Willoughby in Vol. III, II Edn. of ;The Constitutional Law of the United States') without any legal consequences whatsoever. The oath of office insi