- (1.)Fali S. Nariamn, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, expressed the apprehension that Proclamation dated 16.2.2014 having been approved by both Houses of Parliament, it is likely to be under stood that the power conferred on the President under Art. 356(2) of the Constitution of India, particularity in view of the provision contained in Sec. 50(1) of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 (for short "1991 Act") is not exercisable.
(2.)We wanted to know from Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Additional Solicitor General whether the President has the power to revoke or vary the Proclamation under Art. 356(2) of the Constitution of India in such circumstances. In response, he submits that in respect of an Order under Art. 239 AB,the provisions of Art. 356(2) and (3) are applicable. He further submits that Art. 356(2) of the Constitution clearly says that any Proclamation made under Art. 356(1) may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Proclamation. His submission, therefore, is that not with standing approval of such Proclamation by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament, the President may revoke or vary the Proclamation despite the provision contained in Sec. 50 (1) of the 1991. In this regard, he has referred to Sec. 50(1) of 1991 Act, Art. 356(2) and Sections 14 and 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
(3.)Having regard to the above legal position explained by the learned Additional Solicitor General, which is broadly accepted by the learned senior counsel for the parties, we observe that there is no fetter or impediment for the President to exercise his power under Art. 356(2) if it is so required having regard to the fact sand circumstances of the matter concerning Proclamation dated 16.2.2014.