JUDGMENT : 1. 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 31st August, 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 for India, and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Additional Solicitor General. 2. The Constitution of India 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 learned Attorney General and 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 scrutinize the attack made to the proclamation issued under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India on the ground of malafides or it being ultra vires. It would be for the Government to satisfy the court and adequately meet such ground of challenge. A malafide act is wholly outside the scope of the power and has no existence in the eyes of law. Even, the expression "purporting to be done" in Article 361 does not cover acts which are malafide 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 Governor, the ground of malafides 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 malafide or ultra vires or not. That is a question still to be argued. 3. These are our brief reasons. At this stage, we have not examined the question whether the exercise of power by the Governor was malafide or ultra vires or not. That is a question still to be argued. 3. These are our brief reasons. We will give detailed reasons later.