JUDGMENT : Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. Both these Writ Petitions in public interest are co-related by the subject matter. 2. The writ petitioners are shocked by the alleged conduct of a Minister and his utterances in public. It is alleged that the utterances are not only derogatory to the stature and respect which women enjoy in this country, but they have a demoralising effect on the bureaucracy as well. 3. The prayer in W.P.(C) No.15869 of 2017 is for a direction to the Chief Minister to frame a Code of Conduct in respect of Ministers who have subscribed to the oath of office as prescribed by the Constitution and if they fail to live up to the oath, the Code must provide for suitable action. In the second Writ Petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.14712 of 2017, the prayer is for a direction to the authorities to take action against the said Minister for his utterances. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State took a stand that the utterances which have been referred in the pleading are not such as to constitute any misdemeanor punishable by law or cognizable by law. People should not be oversensitive in the matter and in any view of the matter, if they are so aggrieved, they have their statutory remedies which they could avail and which would be dealt with in accordance with law. Thus, there is no reason for this Court to interfere. 5. We have heard the arguments at length and considered the matter. We agree with the submission on behalf of the State that if the petitioners find that the alleged utterances by the Minister are such that Courts or the Police can take cognizance, then it is open for the petitioners to move appropriate forum in this regard and surely the appropriate authority would take action appropriate to the situation in accordance with law, but that cannot be preempted by this Court in any manner. In our view, it should not be and it cannot be preempted by this Court. The complaint is not that the authorities are not doing anything. But the complaint is that we must direct the authorities to do something. In our view, unless it is alleged that authorities are abdicating their statutory functions either under the influence of the person being a Minister or otherwise, this Court cannot interfere. 6. The complaint is not that the authorities are not doing anything. But the complaint is that we must direct the authorities to do something. In our view, unless it is alleged that authorities are abdicating their statutory functions either under the influence of the person being a Minister or otherwise, this Court cannot interfere. 6. Learned Additional Director General of Prosecution, Sri.Suresh Babu Thomas points out that in the second Writ Petition, there was no formal complaint anywhere prior to the filing of the Writ Petition. It is subsequent thereto that a complaint was made to the Police Commissioner who has already enquired into the matter and has clearly opined that no cognizable offence has been committed. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show whether the utterances amounted to a cognizable offence. That is the second part of the Writ Petition. For the reasons indicated, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere in the matter at this stage. 7. So far as the first Writ Petition is concerned, it is argued with some vehemence that the oath of office insisted upon under the Constitution is the prescription of a fundamental Code of Conduct in the discharge of the duties by the constitutional functionaries who subscribed to the oath. The oath has to serve some purpose. It is not an empty formality. Learned counsel has referred to the Third Schedule of the Constitution and the Vth format of the oath or affirmation as stipulated therein which is quoted hereunder : “Form of oath of office for a Minister for a State: “I, A.B., do swear in the name of God that I will bear solemnly affirm true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as a Minister for the State of.........and that I will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” 8. The submission is that the oath clearly stipulates that the Minister will do right to all manner of people and therefore if the Minister contravenes this part by his utterances, surely some consequence must follow and as the Constitution does not provide for any consequence, the Chief Minister must provide a Code or must enunciate a Code to take care of the said contingency. 9. We have considered the submission. We would not like to comment as to the morality of conduct of a person. We, the Courts, are concerned with legality of the conduct and not mere morality. Morality has no punishment prescribed. Different set of people may react differently. Moral standards are not laid down like laws. It is for the society to lay and follow its standards. Moral values vary from place to place, from community to community, from Locality to locality and it would be dangerous for the Courts to get involved in such a nebulous issue. Further, whether the Chief Minister should frame a Code of Conduct or not is the prerogative of the Chief Minister. There is nothing in the Constitution or any law for the time being in force which obliges the Chief Minister either by his position as the Chief Minister as a Constitutional functionary or as the political head to frame such a Code and in absence thereof, there cannot be a writ or a direction issued by a court in this regard. It may be a good thing, a good public policy, to have a Code of Conduct in place. But, surely, this Court in the jurisdiction it exercises, cannot issue such a direction. We thus find no legal ground to interfere in the matter and both the Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, before closing we would like to, add that dismissal of the Writ Petitions shall not be presumed to mean that we have sanctified or approved all the utterances as allegedly made by the Minister in any manner nor have we disapproved anything for, we have dealt with the matter only on the jurisdictional issue.