A writ of quo warranto cannot be issued against a Chief Minister for an alleged breach of oath of office unless there is an usurpation of a public office at the time of appointment.

This writ petition is for the issue of a writ of quo warranto against the first respondent to show cause by what authority he claims to have, use, enjoy and perform the duties, rights and privileges of the Office of the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument invited my attention to Art.164, sub-clause (3) and also to Form V of Oaths of Office prescribed under Third Schedule. According to the learned counsel, the first respondent in a conference convened at Madurai by All World M.G. Ramachandra Mandram has requested the members of the Mandram to give him a promise; and that is the members of Mandram must carry knives with them. Whenever the police fails to punish their enemies, knives will be useful for their self-defence. The exact averment in the affidavit is in para 6, which reads as follows -

"Close to midnight on 13th July, 1986, the first respondent while addressing his fans (blood kins as he claims them) at the All World M.G. Ramachandra Mandram conference held in Madurai made this request in his speech 'I ask you to promise me one thing. You must all carry knives with you. Whenever the police fails to punish your enemies, knives will be useful for your self-defence. Please abide by this'. It was reported in Indian Express on 14-7-1986 and also on 3-8-1986. His major portion of the speech was reported in Tamil dailies like Thinathanthi, Anna and Makkal Kural. It is reported that he read out from the prepared text. Again on 15-7-1986, he defended his earlier speech in a Press conference at Madurai. I crave leave of this Honourable Court to treat the typed set as part and parcel of this affidavit." *

3. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by advocating the above principle the first respondent has committed a breach of oath of office taken by him and such breach would be a constitutional impediment for his continuance in office as Chief Minister and, therefore, he cannot continue as Chief Minister.

4. On the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question that falls for my consideration is, whether the first respondent has committed any breach of oath by directing the members of All World M. G. R. Mandram to carry knives with them, and if so, whether such breach would be constitutional impediment for his continuance in office as Chief Minister. In my view, the petitioner has to pass through an initial hurdle, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a writ of quo warranto would lie under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Art.164(3) of the Constitution enjoins that before a Minister enters upon his office, the Governor shall administer to him the Oath of Office and secrecy according to the forms set out for the purpose in the third Schedule. At the same time, Art.164(1) of the Constitution also points out that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and the other ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister and the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. It is, therefore, clear that the Chief Minister and other ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor. I may at once make it clear that it is not contended before me that the initial appointment of the first respondent is bad for any reason. Therefore, it has to be taken that the first respondent has been validly appointed in accordance with Art.164(1) of the Constitution by the Governor of the State of Tamil Nadu. In the context of Art.164(1) of the Constitution it is for the appointing authority namely, the Governor to consider whether the first respondent has committed any breach of oath disentitling him to continue in office and, therefore, he should withdraw his pleasure. In other words, unless and until the Governor withdraws his pleasure, the Chief Minister is