K SUKUMARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This two matters arise out of a common reference order made by a learned single Judge in two writ petitions under the following circumstances.

(2.) Shri R. Balakrishna Pillai was sworn in as a Minister of the Cabinet headed by Shri K. Karunakaran in 1982. At the function of the Kerala Congress held at Ernakulam, on the 25th May, 1985, the Minister made a speech which gave rise to four writ petitions, two of which have been disposed of in the year 1985.

(3.) It is alleged that the speech of the Minister was "intended to bring out hatred, contempt or disaffection and was an attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India"and an assault on the unity and integrity of India and thus he committed a breach of his oath. The Chief Minister sought clarification from the Minister and did not precipitate any action. Shri K.C. Chandy, claiming to be a citizen, filed a writ petition in this Court as O.P. No. 5360 of 1985 for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto to prevent the Minister from discharging his functions as a Minister. The writ petition was admitted and notice ordered on 5th June, 1985. While admitting the writ petition, a learned single Judge of this Court made certain ex parte observations. The Minister promptly tendered his resignation immediately on the same day. On the 10th of June, another writ petition, O.P. No. 5538 of 1985 was filed by Shri Kallara Sukumaran based practically on the same cause of action. He claimed relief not only against Shri R. Balakrishna Pillai but against other Ministers as well in respect of the speeches delivered at the same convention. That writ petition was dismissed at the admission stage on 13-6-1985 and a writ appeal against that decision, W.A. No. 261 of 1985, was dismissed by a Division Bench on 24th June, 1985. That decision is reported in K. Sukumaran v. Union of India, 1985 Ker LT 567. The Division Bench held that the disqualifications are enumerated in Art.191 of the Constitution, that breach of oath is not a disqualification constitutionally listed, and that this Court cannot add to those disqualifications. It was also held that "morality or propriety of an undesirable person continuing as a Minister is essentially a political question."The Court refused to issue a writ of quo warranto and also dismissed the prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus.