Can a Chief Minister of a State direct his party cadre to arm themselves with knives for “self-protection”? This question not only dominated Tamil Nadu politics 40 years ago but also led to the filing of a petition seeking a writ of quo warranto in the Madras High Court, questioning the authority under which yesteryear film hero-turned-politician M.G. Ramachandran – popularly known as MGR – was occupying the post of Chief Minister.On the night of July 13, 1986, addressing the All World MGR Mandrams conference in Madurai, MGR asked his party cadre to carry a knife with them. In a strange argument, the Chief Minister, who held the Home portfolio, said, “When the police cannot take action against the enemy, this would help for self-defence.”Then DMK president M. Karunanidhi was quick to hit out at his friend-turned-foe. “MGR has lost the right to govern the State. He cannot be trusted as a person who can keep the State together. He has given an open call to lawlessness,” he said, according to contemporaneous news reports.MGR’s Cabinet colleague Panruti S. Ramachandran defended his leader’s call, claiming every Mandram worker should carry a knife because his enemy was armed with a similar weapon. Going a step further, he asked, “What is the use of getting police protection after being killed?”Two days later, MGR himself justified his position, while responding to Karunanidhi’s accusation that the Chief Minister’s statement was an “incitement to violence.”According to a report in The Hindu, “In a statement, Mr. Ramachandran said that Mr. Karunanidhi’s observation was nothing but an attempt to create confusion among the people, in the wake of the Madurai conference of MGR Mandram which had attracted unprecedented crowds.” The Chief Minister reiterated that his advice to his partymen was intended to protect themselves from the violence of DMK partymen, despite the police protection accorded to them.Police Commissioner’s takeThe Madras Police Commissioner W.I. Davaram also took the line that the law does not prevent anyone from carrying a knife.The Hindu report said: “Replying to a newsman’s query whether holding of knives was permissible under the law in the context of the Chief Minister, Mr. M.G. Ramachandran’s advice to his partymen, to carry a knife with them, for self-protection, he said, the City Police Act and the Arms Act prohibited only carrying of firearms and swords, without a licence.”“Mr. Davaram said martial races like the Sikhs, Gorkhas and the Coorgis could carry swords without a licence in view of their convention, and the law was silent about holding of knives by others. The police could prosecute a person holding a knife, if a criminal motive was established against him,” the report said.Asked whether would it not lead to a law-and-order problem for the police if everyone complied with MGR’s call, Mr. Davaram said he was not competent to comment on that statement.Another Minister, K. Kalimuthu, argued only the Opposition leaders were striving to make the issue controversial. “The Chief Minister was quite confident that his call was not intended to fan violence, or create a law-and-order problem, and not even to bring disrepute to the Tamil Nadu police. As a matter of fact, the Tamil Nadu police is probably the best in the entire country.“However, the Chief Minister was right in making this statement because experience has clearly proved that on many occasions the victims in violent incidents were AIADMK men. The police could not be expected to give protection to individuals at all times and in all places,” Kalimuthu said.Nearly a fortnight later, MGR, citing an incident in Madurai, in which he claimed an AIADMK cadre was attacked, sought to argue that his stand was right.Writ petition in Madras HCAgainst this backdrop, a litigant named V. Ramachandran filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court for the issue of a writ of quo warranto against MGR 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.His counsel submitted that by advocating the carrying of knives, MGR “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.”The judge, who heard the case, then examined if MGR has committed any breach of oath by directing the members of All World MGR Mandram to carry knives with them, and if so, whether such breach would be constitutional impediment for his continuance in office as Chief Minister.What the court saidThe court then decided to handle the issue constitutionally. It pointed out that Article 164(l) of the Constitution held 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,” the judge said.Citing judgements of the Madras High Court and the Kerala High Court, the judge held that it was only for the Governor, the appointing authority, to consider whether there was any breach of oath by the Chief Minister. “It is not for this Court to embark on any such enquiry.....,” the judge said adding, “I have no hesitation to hold that on the facts of the case, no writ of quo warranto could be issued as the question as to whether there was breach of Oath of Office or of Secrecy committed by the first respondent (MGR) is outside the judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution.” Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.