KALLARA SUKUMARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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 hatched 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.124-A of the Indian Penal Code. No effective steps 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.