The court emphasized the exhaustive nature of the disqualifications provided in the Constitution and the political nature of assessing the morality or propriety of a Minister, highlighting that it is impermissible for the court to import or imply additional disqualifications.

1. The writ appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge of this Court dismissing in limine a writ petition filed by the petitioners.

2. The 3rd respondent was, and respondents 4 to 6 are, Ministers in the State of Kerala. They belong to the 'Kerala Congress', one of the constituents of the 'ruling front' which has formed the Ministry. Kerala Congress had a party convention at Ernakulam on the 25th of May, 1985. These respondents participated and spoke in that meeting. The appellants-petitioners alleged that the 3rd respondent in his speech, aggressively exhorted for a 'Punjab model' agitation, directed against the Central Government. According to them, that speech was the result of an'anti-centre' conspiracy batched by many including respondents 4 to 6. Respondents 4 to 6 even encouraged the 3rd respondent in his speech, and had stood by him even subsequent to his resignation from the Ministry. The speech undermines the sovereignty and integrity of the Indian Union. It therefore subverts the Constitution as by law established. In so acting, they have violated the oath taken by them under Art.164(3) as Ministers before the assumption of office. They have also violated the oath as Members of the Legislative Assembly taken under Art.188 of the Constitution. Such a wanton violation of the constitutional oath entails a forfeiture of their position both as Ministers and as Members of the Assembly. They are therefore usurpers of office. A writ of Quo Warranto is therefore sought seeking ouster of the usurpers of office. The acts also constitute a serious offence of sedition punishable under S.124A of the Indian Penal Code. No effective setups have been taken either by the Union or by the State for prosecution for that serious offence. A writ of mandamus is sought to compel the Central and State Governments to perform their statutory duty to bring to book the offenders involved in such a serious crime.

3. The writ petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that the pleadings did not make out a case for entertaining a petition for Quo Warranto. In as much as the approach to the Court for a writ of mandamus was not preceded by a prior demand, the prayer in that behalf is not maintainable, according to the learned judge.

4. We consider that a far more fundamental question involved in the writ petition, and in the writ appeal, is about the availability of a writ of Quo Warranto in a situation as the present one, even on the assumption of the correctness of the factual averments. We shall consider that aspect at the outset.

5. The writ of Quo Warranto is one on information afforded in a judicial enquiry into the question whether the holder of a public office? occupies that office without legal authority. The Court is enabled by such a writ to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions. (See University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, A I. R.1965 S.C. 491). It is also available to have the holding of an office declared forfeited, "if, having once been rightfully possessed and enjoyed, it has become forfeited for misuser or nonuser." (See "Extra-ordinary Legal Remedies" by Ferris, Page 125).

6. Under Art.164 of the Constitution, the Chief Minister is to be appointed by the Governor and Ministers other than the Chief Minister are to be appointed by the Governor on the advice by the Chief Minister. It is not disputed that respondents 4 to 6 became Ministers in accordance with this constitutional provision. The contention is that they became subsequently disqualified for the reasons alluded to above. The correctness of the contention has to be evaluated by a reference to the constitutional scheme in that behalf.

7. A pivotal role is played by the high functionary of the State, the Governor. Art.164(1) is explicit that the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. Consistent with the constitutional provisions and democratic