B PURUSHOTHAM REDDY Vs. N SRINIVASULU REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- In this writ petition, the petitioner, an advocate practising in this High Court, sought the issue of a writ of quo warranto declaring that the respondent, a Cabinet Minister (in charge of Revenue) of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, forfeited his right to continue to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a Minister, as he had in breach of the oath he had taken and in violation of the provisions of Art.211 of the Constitution, on Aug. 13, 1987 made in the Legislative Assembly certain statements derogatory to one of the Judges of this Court in relation to his conduct in the discharge of his duties. The respondent resisted the petition on two grounds : (1) the Statement alleged to have been made by him did not violate the provisions of Article 211 of the Constitution; and (2) in any event, he was protected by the immunity provided by Art.194(2) of Constitution. This writ petition filed on Aug. 20, 1987 was sought to be amended on the basis of the affidavit filed on Aug. 23, 1987 raising an additional ground pertaining to the statement derogatory to the Governor alleged to have been made by the respondent during the course of a Press Conference held by him on Feb. 2, 1987. The respondent in his counter-affidavit denied the correctness of the allegation concerning the statement about the Governor attributed to him.

(2.) Though this writ petition, which evoked keen public interest, consumed considerable time of the Court, the turn of events after the hearing of the writ petition was completed and the judgement was reserved has rendered the whole exercise a futility. We take judicial notice of the reports in the media that the respondent ceased to be a Minister on and from Nov. 12, 1987 pursuant to a notification issued by the Governor removing him from the Council of Ministers. True it is, the declaration sought was also to the effect that he ceased to be a member of the Assembly; no argument, however, was advanced with respect to this part of the prayer. So, in the position that has emerged, we do not consider it necessary to pronounce anything on the merits of the case either on facts or in law.

(3.) Though in the light of the very enlightening arguments heard, we had formed a definite view on the issue whether this Court had the jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether a particular statement made by a Member or a Minister on the floor of the House was in breach of Art.211 of the Constitution, in keeping with the well-accepted principle that a judgement should not contain anything that is not strictly necessary for the disposal of the case on hand, we exercise our judicious discretion not to express it.