Order 1. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 353 of 2005, made his submissions from 10.30 a.m. to 10.40 a.m. Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 257 of 2005, made his submissions for five minutes. Thereafter, Mr. Viplav Sharma, petitioner in person in Writ Petition (C) No. 258 of 2005, thereafter resumed his submissions and concluded at 12.20 p.m. Thereafter, Mr. Milon K. Banerji, learned Attorney General, made his submissions till 1.00 p.m. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India, thereafter made his submissions till 3.00 p.m. 2. Hearing concluded. Orders reserved. 3. In terms of the signed order, the Court, while giving brief reasons, accepted the submissions of the learned Attorney General and the learned Additional Solicitor General that this Court may not issue notice to the Governor, and stated that it will give detailed reasons later. 4. The hearing of the writ petitions is preponed; instead of 27.9.2005, the arguments in these matters would commence on 20.9.2005. Before 20.9.2005, the parties shall also file their written submissions. The petitioners would be permitted to make oral submissions on 20.9.2005 and 21.9.2005. The respondents would be permitted to make their submissions on 22.9.2005, 27.9.2005 and 28.9.2005. On 29.9.2005, the petitioners will make submissions in reply and the hearing will conclude on that day. 5. In view of the preponement of the date of hearing, Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 353 of 2005 and Mr. Viplav Sharma, appearing in person in Writ Petition (C) No. 258 of 2005, do not press their applications for grant of stay of elections. These applications are, accordingly, disposed of as not pressed. 6. On the question whether the Governor could be impleaded in his capacity as the Governor and whether notice could be issued to him on the writ petitions in the context of averments made and the prayers contained in the petitions and other aspects highlighted in the order dated 31.8.2005, we have heard Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing in Writ Petition (C) No. 257 of 2005, and Mr. Viplav Sharma, petitioner in person in Writ Petition (C) No. 258 of 2005. We have also heard the submissions made by Mr. Milon K. Banerji, Attorney General and Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing in Writ Petition (C) No. 257 of 2005, and Mr. Viplav Sharma, petitioner in person in Writ Petition (C) No. 258 of 2005. We have also heard the submissions made by Mr. Milon K. Banerji, Attorney General and Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General. 7. The Constitution grants immunity to the Governor as provided in Article 361. Article 361(1), inter alia, provides that the Governor shall not be answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in exercise and performance of those powers and duties. It is submitted by the learned Attorney General and the Additional Solicitor General that in view of Article 361(1), this Court may not issue notice to the Governor. While we accept the submission but, at the same time, it is also necessary to note that the immunity granted to the Governor does not affect the power of the court to judicially scrutinise the attack made to the proclamation issued under Article 356(1) of the Constitution on the ground of mala fides or it being ultra vires. It would be for the Government to satisfy the court and adequately meet such ground of challenge. A mala fide act is wholly outside the scope of the power and has no existence in the eye of the law. Even, the expression “purporting to be done” in Article 361 does not cover acts which are mala fide or ultra vires and, thus, the Government supporting the proclamation under Article 356(1) shall have to meet the challenge. The immunity granted under Article 361 does not mean that in the absence of the Governor, the ground of mala fides or proclamation being ultra vires would not be examined by the Court. At this stage, we have not examined the question whether the exercise of power by the Governor was mala fide or ultra vires or not. That is a question still to be argued. 8. These are our brief reasons. We will give detailed reasons later. Order accordingly. *****************