Art.226 - Writ of quo warranto when can be issued - Minister violating the Oath taken at the time of assuming office - Outside judicial review. Breach of office of oath does not amount to disqualification under the constitution or under any law made by the Parliament. The oath binds the person throughout his tenure in that office and he extricates himself from the bonds of the oath only when he trees himself from the office he holds. Breach of this fundamental conduct of good behaviour may result in the deprivation of the very office he holds. Breach of oath may be a betrayal of faith. The appointing authority, the Governor, in such cases, can consider whether there was, in fact, any breach of oath. The Court cannot embark on any such enquiry. Breach of oath requires a termination of the tenure of office which can be exercised by the appointing authority under the constitution. The termination of such tenure is not the function of a court and it would not be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in such cases. The normal rule is that a writ of quo warranto or a writ by way of information in the nature of quo warranto cannot be issued in the cases when the post is held "at pleasure". [K.C. Chandy v. R. Balakrishna Pillai, 1986 (1) ILR 116 = 1985 KLT 762 = AIR 1986 (Ker) 116 (FB), Bhaskaran (CJ), Narendran & Bhaskaran Nambiar (JJ)]
Art.226 - Writ of Quo Warrants - drastic remedy - Courts to proceed with deliberation and utmost caution - purely discretionary writ, all circumstances of the case, lapse of time, laches, acquiscence, estoppel and whether public interest will be served to be considered. Malafides of appointing authority not sufficient or good ground - Court has no jurisdiction or power to examine and explore mind of appointing authority. Main question for determination is title of person who holds office and whether he is an usurper. [K.J. Joseph v. Justice Sukumaran & others, 1987 (1) KLT 37 = AIR 1987 (Ker) 140, Varghese Kalliath (J)]