JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, ACJ. 1. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner, who is an advocate of this court as well as a Professor of Law, inter alia, questioning the legality and/or validity of appointment of the care-taker Government at the Centre. 2. Mr. Hazra, the petitioner, appearing in-person has very strenuously argued that a Government which has lost the confidence of the people cannot be permitted to continue as a care-taker Government. Relying on or on the basis of a decision of the Apex Court in U.N.R. Rao vs. Smt. Indira Gandhi, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1002 , the petitioner submits that the concept of a care-taker Government was beyond the contemplation of the makers of the Constitution and, in any event a care-taker Government cannot be said to be a responsible Government. Care-taker Government, contends Mr. Hazra, has no constitutional recognition and the oath of office taken by such members of the Government perishes along with the resignation of the Prime Minister. 3. Reliance has also been placed on K. M. Sharma vs. Shri Devi Lal, reported in AIR 1990 SC 528 . 4. Mr. Vaidyanathan, the learned Addl. Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in Parliamentary Democracy there must be a Government which would be at the helm of the affairs. Mr. Vaidyanathan would urge that there cannot be a vaccum and Constitution of India takes care of the situation to the effect that a care-taker Government does not continue for a longtime, as two sessions of Parliament, must be held within a period of six months. 5. The Constitution of India, inter alia, speaks of a Democratic Republic, Article 53 provides for the executive power of the Union. Such a power, as is well known, must be exercised by the President on the advice of the Council of Minister. Article 54 refers to the election of President. Article 74 of the Constitution of India provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head, to aid and advise the President, who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice. 6. Article 54 refers to the election of President. Article 74 of the Constitution of India provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head, to aid and advise the President, who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice. 6. In Ram Jawaya vs. State of Punjab, reported in 1955 (2) S.C.R. 225 , the Apex Court, inter alia, held that though we have an elected President, Article 74 introduces the same system of parliamentary executive as in England and reduces the President to a formal or constitutional head of the executive; the real power being exercised by the Council of Ministers. 7. In U.N.R. Rao vs. Smt. Indira Gandhi, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1002 , upon which strong reliance had been placed by Mr. Hazra the Apex Court has clearly stated that all the powers that are vested by the Constitution in President must be exercised on the advice of the Ministers responsible to the legislature as in England because of the mandatory requirement of clause (1) of Article 74. The answer to the question raised by Sri Hazra are to be found in Rao's case itself; wherein it is stated: "Let us now look at the relevant Articles of the Constitution in the context of which we must interpret Article 75(3) of the Constitution. Chapter I of Part V of the Constitution deals with the Executive. Article 52 provides that there shall be a President of India and Article 53(1) vests the executive power of the Union in the President and provides that it shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. The last five words are important inasmush as they control the President's action under Article 63(1). Any exercise of the executive power not in accordance with the Constitution will be liable to be set aside. There is no doubt that the President of India is a person who has to be elected in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution but even so he is bound by the provisions of the Constitution. Now comes the crucial clause (3) of Article 75. The appellant urges that the House of People having been dissolved this clause cannot be complied with. Now comes the crucial clause (3) of Article 75. The appellant urges that the House of People having been dissolved this clause cannot be complied with. according to him it follows from the provisions of this clause that it was contemplated that on the dissolution of the House of People the Prime Minister and the other ministers must resign or be dismissed by the President and the President must carryon the Government as best as he can with the aid of the services. As we have shown above, Article 74(1) is mandatory and, therefore, the President cannot exercise the executive power without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. We must then harmonise the provisions of Article 75(3) with Article 74(1) and Article 75(2). Article 75(3) brings into existence what is usually called "Responsible Government". In other words the Council of Ministers must enjoy the confidence of the House of People. While the House of People is not dissolved under Article 85(2) (b), Article 75 (3) has full operation. But when it is dissolved the Council of Ministers can not naturally enjoy the confidence of the House of People. No body has said that the Council of Ministers does not enjoy the confidence of the House of People when it is prorogued. In the context, therefore, this clause must be read as meaning that Article 75(3) only applies when the House of People does not stand dissolved or prorogued. We are not concerned with the case where dissolution of the House of People takes place under Article 83(2) on the expiration of the period of five years prescribed therein, for 'Parliament has provided for the contingency in section 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951." 8. In Harsharan Verma vs. Charan Singh & Ors., reported in (1985) 1 SCC 162 , it has been held; "It is a well-known fact of history that the Government of Shri Charan Singh was in office for a very brief spell. It fell soon after it assumed office, indeed, too soon. The issues raised by the appellant are no longer live and it is not the practice of this Court to decide questions of mere academic importance. It fell soon after it assumed office, indeed, too soon. The issues raised by the appellant are no longer live and it is not the practice of this Court to decide questions of mere academic importance. We must, however, hasten to add that the High Court is right in its view that Shri Charan Singh's appointment as the Prime Minister could not be said to be conditional upon his seeking a mandate of the Lok Sabha. Our Constitution knows no such hybrid thing as a 'Prime Minister subject to a condition of defeasance'. Conditions imposed by the President may create considerations of political morality or conventional propriety but not of constitutional validity. The High Court is also right that it was not necessary for Shri Charan Singh and his ministers to take a fresh oath after being called upon by the President to continue in office as a care-taker Government. Thus, the continuation in office of Shri Charan Singh and his ministers was not unconstitutional." 9. Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Madan Murari Verma vs. Choudhuri Charan Singh & Anrs., reported in AIR 1980 Cal 95 has held; "In view of the aforesaid decisions and the conventions of the British Parliamentary System which have been more or less accepted in this country, in my opinion, though under Article 74(1) of the Constitution of India the President is bound to act in discharge of his functions on the advice given by the Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers, even though that was the position judicially recognised before the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution and now made expressly obligatory by the 42nd Amendment, in making a choice the President has to act in his own discretion and naturally he must take various factors into consideration and the primary factor is his assessment as to who as Prime Minister and which body of Council of Ministers will enjoy the confidence of the Parliament in terms of Article 75(3) of the Constitution. But the President is not fettered in his choice except by his own assessment. But the President is not fettered in his choice except by his own assessment. Therefore, in the event that had happened since the resignation of Shri Morarji Desai as Prime Minister being the leader of the Janata Parliamentary Party and the recommendation of the leader of the opposition that the respondent No.1 should be asked to form the Government, in my opinion, the President of India in the facts and circumstances of this case legally and constitutionally was justified in calling upon the respondent No.1 to form the Ministry as he did. Whether he was politically so justified or not is not a matter for this Court to determine." 10. The aforementioned decisions leave no manner of doubt that the Constitution of India does not contemplate a vaccum although a Council of Ministers have lost confidence. In absence of any other party/parties having been able to form any Government, the old Government continues although the Constitution of India itself does not speak of a care-taker Government. 11. Upon reading of various provisions thereof, it is evident that such a situation is contemplated under the Constitution inasmuch as the President alone like United States of America cannot exercise its executive function in absence of the advice of the Council of Ministers. 12. In K.M. Sharma vs. Shri Devi Lal & Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 528 , upon which Mr. Hazra strongly relied upon merely states that although Mr. Devi Lal, the respondent therein have taken an other on office as Deputy Prime Minister of India, his designation does not mean that there would be another Prime Minister of India, his designation does not mean that there would be another, Prime Minister of India but his status was that of only a Cabinet Minister. The said decision has no application in the present case. 13. For the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in application which is accordingly dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs. M.H.S. Ansari, J.: I agree. Writ application dismissed.