jbp123/hello · Datasets at Hugging Face

instruction stringlengths 1 84	input stringlengths 1 85	output stringlengths 1 83
Order cannot be challenged even after the Order expires.	The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted the scope of Article	359 in two ways. Firstly, the President cannot suspend the right to
move the Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights	guaranteed by Articles 20 to 21. In other words, the right to	protection in respect of conviction for offences (Article 20) and the
right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) remain enforceable	even during emergency. Secondly, only those laws which are	related with the emergency are protected from being challenged
and not other laws and the executive action taken only under such	a law, is protected.	Distinction Between Articles 358 and 359
The differences between Articles 358 and 359 can be summarised	as follows:	1. Article 358 is confined to Fundamental Rights under Article
19 only whereas Article 359 extends to all those	Fundamental Rights whose enforcement is suspended by	the Presidential Order.
2. Article 358 automatically suspends the fundamental rights	under Article 19 as soon as the emergency is declared. On	the other hand, Article 359 does not automatically suspend
any Fundamental Right. It only empowers the president to	suspend the enforcement of the specified Fundamental	Rights.
3. Article 358 operates only in case of External Emergency	(that is, when the emergency is declared on the grounds of	war or external aggression) and not in the case of Internal
Emergency (ie, when the Emergency is declared on the	ground of armed rebellion). Article 359, on the other hand,	operates in case of both External Emergency as well as
Internal Emergency.	4. Article 358 suspends Fundamental Rights under Article 19	for the entire duration of Emergency while Article 359
suspends the enforcement of Fundamental Rights for a	period specified by the president which may either be the	entire duration of Emergency or a shorter period.
5. Article 358 extends to the entire country whereas Article 359	may extend to the entire country or a part of it.	6. Article 358 suspends Article 19 completely while Article 359
does not empower the suspension of the enforcement of	Articles 20 and 21.	7. Article 358 enables the State to make any law or take any
executive action inconsistent with Fundamental Rights under	Article 19 while Article 359 enables the State to make any	law or take any executive action inconsistent with those
Fundamental Rights whose enforcement is suspended by	the Presidential Order.	There is also a similarity between Article 358 and Article 359.
Both provide immunity from challenge to only those laws which	are related with the Emergency and not other laws. Also, the	executive action taken only under such a law is protected by both.
Declarations Made So Far	This type of Emergency has been proclaimed three times so far–	in 1962, 1971 and 1975.
The first proclamation of National Emergency was issued in	October 1962 on account of Chinese aggression in the NEFA	(North-East Frontier Agency–now Arunachal Pradesh), and was in
force till January 1968. Hence, a fresh proclamation was not	needed at the time of war against Pakistan in 1965.	The second proclamation of national emergency was made in
Emergency was in operation, a third proclamation of National	Emergency was made in June 1975. Both the second and third	proclamations were revoked in March 1977.
The first two proclamations (1962 and 1971) were made on the	ground of ‘external aggression’, while the third proclamation	(1975) was made on the ground of ‘internal disturbance’, that is,
certain persons have been inciting the police and the armed	forces against the discharge of their duties and their normal	functioning.
The Emergency declared in 1975 (internal emergency) proved	to be the most controversial. There was widespread criticism of	the misuse of Emergency powers. In the elections held to the Lok
Sabha in 1977 after the Emergency, the Congress Party led by	Indira Gandhi lost and the Janta Party came to power. This	government appointed the Shah Commission to investigate the
circumstances that warranted the declaration of an Emergency in	1975. The commission did not justify the declaration of the	Emergency. Hence, the 44th Amendment Act was enacted in
PRESIDENT’S RULE	Grounds of Imposition	Article 355 imposes a duty on the Centre to ensure that the
government of every state is carried on in accordance with the	provisions of the Constitution. It is this duty in the performance of	which the Centre takes over the government of a state under
Article 356 in case of failure of constitutional machinery in state.	This is popularly known as ‘President’s Rule’. It is also known as	‘State Emergency’ or ‘Constitutional Emergency’.
The President’s Rule can be proclaimed under Article 356 on	two grounds–one mentioned in Article 356 itself and another in	Article 365:
1. Article 356 empowers the President to issue a proclamation,	if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the	government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution. Notably, the president	can act either on a report of the governor of the state or	otherwise too (ie, even without the governor’s report).
2. Article 365 says that whenever a state fails to comply with or	to give effect to any direction from the Centre, it will be lawful	for the president to hold that a situation has arisen in which
the government of the state cannot be carried on in	accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.	Parliamentary Approval and Duration
A proclamation imposing President’s Rule must be approved by	both the Houses of Parliament within two months from the date of	its issue. However, if the proclamation of President’s Rule is
issued at a time when the Lok Sabha has been dissolved or the	dissolution of the Lok Sabha takes place during the period of two	months without approving the proclamation, then the proclamation
survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after	its reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha approves it in the	mean time.
If approved by both the Houses of Parliament, the President’s	Rule continues for six months6. It can be extended for a maximum	period of three years7 with the approval of the Parliament, every
six months. However, if the dissolution of the Lok Sabha takes	place during the period of six months without approving the further	continuation of the President’s Rule, then the proclamation
survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after	its reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha has in the meantime	approved its continuance.
Every resolution approving the proclamation of President’s Rule	or its continuation can be passed by either House of Parliament	only by a simple majority, that is, a majority of the members of that
House present and voting.	The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a new provision	to put restraint on the power of Parliament to extend a
proclamation of President’s Rule beyond one year. Thus, it	provided that, beyond one year, the President’s Rule can be	extended by six months at a time only when the following two
conditions are fulfilled:	1. a proclamation of National Emergency should be in	operation in the whole of India, or in the whole or any part of
the state; and	2. the Election Commission must certify that the general	elections to the legislative assembly of the concerned state
cannot be held on account of difficulties.	A proclamation of President’s Rule may be revoked by the	President at any time by a subsequent proclamation. Such a
proclamation does not require the parliamentary approval.	Consequences of President’s Rule	The President acquires the following extraordinary powers when
the President’s Rule is imposed in a state:	1. He can take up the functions of the state government and	powers vested in the governor or any other executive
authority in the state.	2. He can declare that the powers of the state legislature are to	be exercised by the Parliament.
3. He can take all other necessary steps including the	suspension of the constitutional provisions relating to any	body or authority in the state.
Therefore, when the President’s Rule is imposed in a state, the	President dismisses the state council of ministers headed by the	chief minister. The state governor, on behalf of the President,
carries on the state administration with the help of the chief	secretary of the state or the advisors appointed by the President.	This is the reason why a proclamation under Article 356 is
popularly known as the imposition of ‘President’s Rule’ in a state.	Further, the President either suspends or dissolves the state	legislative assembly8. The Parliament passes the state legislative
bills and the state budget.	When the state legislature is thus suspended or dissolved:	1. the Parliament can delegate the power to make laws for the
state to the President or to any other authority specified by	him in this regard,	2. the Parliament or in case of delegation, the President or any
other specified authority can make laws conferring powers	and imposing duties on the Centre or its officers and	authorities,
3. the President can authorise, when the Lok Sabha is not in	session, expenditure from the state consolidated fund	pending its sanction by the Parliament, and
4. the President can promulgate, when the Parliament is not in	session, ordinances for the governance of the state.	A law made by the Parliament or president or any other
specified authority continues to be operative even after the	President’s Rule. This means that the period for which such a law	remains in force is not coterminous with the duration of the
proclamation. But it can be repealed or altered or re-enacted by	the state legislature.	It should be noted here that the President cannot assume to
himself the powers vested in the concerned state high court or	suspend the provisions of the Constitution relating to it. In other	words, the constitutional position, status, powers and functions of
Use of Article 356	Since 1950, the President’s Rule has been imposed on more than	125 occasions, that is, on an average twice a year. Further, on a
number of occasions, the President’s Rule has been imposed in	an arbitrary manner for political or personal reasons. Hence,	Article 356 has become one of the most controversial and most
criticised provision of the Constitution.	Table 16.1 Comparing National Emergency and President’s Rule	National Emergency (Article President’s Rule (Article
352) 356)	1. It can be proclaimed only 1. It can be proclaimed when	when the security of India the government of a state
or a part of it is threatened cannot be carried on in	by war, external aggression accordance with the	or armed rebellion. provisions of the
Constitution due to reasons	which may not have any	connection with war,
external aggression or	armed rebellion.	2. During its operation, the 2. During its operation, the
state executive and state executive is	legislature continue to dismissed and the state	function and exercise the legislature is either
powers assigned to them suspended or dissolved.	under the Constitution. Its The president administers	effect is that the Centre the state through the
gets concurrent powers of governor and the	administration and Parliament makes laws for	legislation in the state. the state. In brief, the
executive and legislative	powers of the state are	assumed by the Centre.
subjects enumerated in the make laws for the state to	State List only by itself, that the President or to any	is, it cannot delegate the other authority specified by
same to any other body or him. So far, the practice	authority. has been for the president	to make laws for the state
in consultation with the	members of Parliament	from that state. Such laws
are known as President’s	Acts.	4. There is no maximum 4. There is a maximum period
period prescribed for its prescribed for its operation,	operation. It can be that is, three years.	continued indefinitely with Thereafter, it must come to
the approval of Parliament an end and the normal	for every six months. constitutional machinery	must be restored in the
state.	5. Under this, the relationship 5. Under this, the relationship	of the Centre with all the of only the state under
states undergoes a emergency with the Centre	modification. undergoes a modification.	6. Every resolution of 6. Every resolution of
Parliament approving its Parliament approving its	proclamation or its proclamation or its	continuance must be continuance can be passed
passed by a special only by a simple majority.	majority.	7. It affects fundamental rights 7. It has no effect on
of the citizens. Fundamental Rights of the	citizens.	8. Lok Sabha can pass a 8. There is no such provision.
For the first time, the President’s Rule was imposed in Punjab	in 1951. By now, all most all the states have been brought under	the President’s Rule, once or twice or more. The details in this
regard are given in Table 16.2 at the end of this chapter.	When general elections were held to the Lok Sabha in 1977	after the internal emergency, the ruling Congress Party lost and
the Janta Party came to power. The new government headed by	Morarji Desai imposed President’s Rule in nine states9 (where the	Congress Party was in power) on the ground that the assemblies
in those states no longer represented the wishes of the electorate.	When the Congress Party returned to power in 1980, it did the	same in nine states10 on the same ground.
In 1992, President’s Rule was imposed in three BJP-ruled	states (Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan) by	the Congress Party on the ground that they were not
implementing sincerely the ban imposed by the Centre on	religious organisations. In a landmark judgement in Bommai	case11 (1994), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of this
proclamation on the ground that secularism is a ‘basic feature’ of	the Constitution. But, the court did not uphold the validity of the	imposition of the President’s Rule in Nagaland in 1988, Karnataka
in 1989 and Meghalaya in 1991.	Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, while replying to the critics of this provision	in the Constituent Assembly, hoped that the drastic power
conferred by Article 356 would remain a ‘deadletter’ and would be	used only as a measure of last resort. He observed12 :	“The intervention of the Centre must be deemed to be barred,
because that would be an invasion on the sovereign authority	of the province (state). That is a fundamental proposition which	we must accept by reason of the fact that we have a Federal
Constitution. That being so, if the Centre is to interfere in the	administration of provincial affairs, it must be under some	obligation which the Constitution imposes upon the Centre. The
proper thing we ought to expect is that such Articles will never	be called into operation and that they would remain a dead-	letter. If at all they are brought into operation, I hope the
precautions before actually suspending the administration of	the province.”	However, the subsequent events show that what was hoped to
be a ‘dead-letter’ of the Constitution has turned to be a ‘deadly-	weapon’ against a number of state governments and legislative	assemblies. In this context, H.V. Kamath, a member of the
Constituent Assembly commented a decade ago: ‘Dr. Ambedkar	is dead and the Articles are very much alive’.	Scope of Judicial Review
The 38th Amendment Act of 1975 made the satisfaction of the	President in invoking Article 356 final and conclusive which could	not be challenged in any court on any ground. But, this provision
was subsequently deleted by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978	implying that the satisfaction of the President is not beyond	judicial review.

Order cannot be challenged even after the Order expires.

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restricted the scope of Article

359 in two ways. Firstly, the President cannot suspend the right to

move the Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights

guaranteed by Articles 20 to 21. In other words, the right to

protection in respect of conviction for offences (Article 20) and the

right to life and personal liberty (Article 21) remain enforceable

even during emergency. Secondly, only those laws which are

related with the emergency are protected from being challenged

and not other laws and the executive action taken only under such

a law, is protected.

Distinction Between Articles 358 and 359

The differences between Articles 358 and 359 can be summarised

as follows:

1. Article 358 is confined to Fundamental Rights under Article

19 only whereas Article 359 extends to all those

Fundamental Rights whose enforcement is suspended by

the Presidential Order.

2. Article 358 automatically suspends the fundamental rights

under Article 19 as soon as the emergency is declared. On

the other hand, Article 359 does not automatically suspend

any Fundamental Right. It only empowers the president to

suspend the enforcement of the specified Fundamental

Rights.

3. Article 358 operates only in case of External Emergency

(that is, when the emergency is declared on the grounds of

war or external aggression) and not in the case of Internal

Emergency (ie, when the Emergency is declared on the

ground of armed rebellion). Article 359, on the other hand,

operates in case of both External Emergency as well as

Internal Emergency.

4. Article 358 suspends Fundamental Rights under Article 19

for the entire duration of Emergency while Article 359

suspends the enforcement of Fundamental Rights for a

period specified by the president which may either be the

entire duration of Emergency or a shorter period.

5. Article 358 extends to the entire country whereas Article 359

may extend to the entire country or a part of it.

6. Article 358 suspends Article 19 completely while Article 359

does not empower the suspension of the enforcement of

Articles 20 and 21.

7. Article 358 enables the State to make any law or take any

executive action inconsistent with Fundamental Rights under

Article 19 while Article 359 enables the State to make any

law or take any executive action inconsistent with those

Fundamental Rights whose enforcement is suspended by

the Presidential Order.

There is also a similarity between Article 358 and Article 359.

Both provide immunity from challenge to only those laws which

are related with the Emergency and not other laws. Also, the

executive action taken only under such a law is protected by both.

Declarations Made So Far

This type of Emergency has been proclaimed three times so far–

in 1962, 1971 and 1975.

The first proclamation of National Emergency was issued in

October 1962 on account of Chinese aggression in the NEFA

(North-East Frontier Agency–now Arunachal Pradesh), and was in

force till January 1968. Hence, a fresh proclamation was not

needed at the time of war against Pakistan in 1965.

The second proclamation of national emergency was made in

Emergency was in operation, a third proclamation of National

Emergency was made in June 1975. Both the second and third

proclamations were revoked in March 1977.

The first two proclamations (1962 and 1971) were made on the

ground of ‘external aggression’, while the third proclamation

(1975) was made on the ground of ‘internal disturbance’, that is,

certain persons have been inciting the police and the armed

forces against the discharge of their duties and their normal

functioning.

The Emergency declared in 1975 (internal emergency) proved

to be the most controversial. There was widespread criticism of

the misuse of Emergency powers. In the elections held to the Lok

Sabha in 1977 after the Emergency, the Congress Party led by

Indira Gandhi lost and the Janta Party came to power. This

government appointed the Shah Commission to investigate the

circumstances that warranted the declaration of an Emergency in

1975. The commission did not justify the declaration of the

Emergency. Hence, the 44th Amendment Act was enacted in

PRESIDENT’S RULE

Grounds of Imposition

Article 355 imposes a duty on the Centre to ensure that the

government of every state is carried on in accordance with the

provisions of the Constitution. It is this duty in the performance of

which the Centre takes over the government of a state under

Article 356 in case of failure of constitutional machinery in state.

This is popularly known as ‘President’s Rule’. It is also known as

‘State Emergency’ or ‘Constitutional Emergency’.

The President’s Rule can be proclaimed under Article 356 on

two grounds–one mentioned in Article 356 itself and another in

Article 365:

1. Article 356 empowers the President to issue a proclamation,

if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the

government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance

with the provisions of the Constitution. Notably, the president

can act either on a report of the governor of the state or

otherwise too (ie, even without the governor’s report).

2. Article 365 says that whenever a state fails to comply with or

to give effect to any direction from the Centre, it will be lawful

for the president to hold that a situation has arisen in which

the government of the state cannot be carried on in

accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Parliamentary Approval and Duration

A proclamation imposing President’s Rule must be approved by

both the Houses of Parliament within two months from the date of

its issue. However, if the proclamation of President’s Rule is

issued at a time when the Lok Sabha has been dissolved or the

dissolution of the Lok Sabha takes place during the period of two

months without approving the proclamation, then the proclamation

survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after

its reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha approves it in the

mean time.

If approved by both the Houses of Parliament, the President’s

Rule continues for six months6. It can be extended for a maximum

period of three years7 with the approval of the Parliament, every

six months. However, if the dissolution of the Lok Sabha takes

place during the period of six months without approving the further

continuation of the President’s Rule, then the proclamation

survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after

its reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha has in the meantime

approved its continuance.

Every resolution approving the proclamation of President’s Rule

or its continuation can be passed by either House of Parliament

only by a simple majority, that is, a majority of the members of that

House present and voting.

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a new provision

to put restraint on the power of Parliament to extend a

proclamation of President’s Rule beyond one year. Thus, it

provided that, beyond one year, the President’s Rule can be

extended by six months at a time only when the following two

conditions are fulfilled:

1. a proclamation of National Emergency should be in

operation in the whole of India, or in the whole or any part of

the state; and

2. the Election Commission must certify that the general

elections to the legislative assembly of the concerned state

cannot be held on account of difficulties.

A proclamation of President’s Rule may be revoked by the

President at any time by a subsequent proclamation. Such a

proclamation does not require the parliamentary approval.

Consequences of President’s Rule

The President acquires the following extraordinary powers when

the President’s Rule is imposed in a state:

1. He can take up the functions of the state government and

powers vested in the governor or any other executive

authority in the state.

2. He can declare that the powers of the state legislature are to

be exercised by the Parliament.

3. He can take all other necessary steps including the

suspension of the constitutional provisions relating to any

body or authority in the state.

Therefore, when the President’s Rule is imposed in a state, the

President dismisses the state council of ministers headed by the

chief minister. The state governor, on behalf of the President,

carries on the state administration with the help of the chief

secretary of the state or the advisors appointed by the President.

This is the reason why a proclamation under Article 356 is

popularly known as the imposition of ‘President’s Rule’ in a state.

Further, the President either suspends or dissolves the state

legislative assembly8. The Parliament passes the state legislative

bills and the state budget.

When the state legislature is thus suspended or dissolved:

1. the Parliament can delegate the power to make laws for the

state to the President or to any other authority specified by

him in this regard,

2. the Parliament or in case of delegation, the President or any

other specified authority can make laws conferring powers

and imposing duties on the Centre or its officers and

authorities,

3. the President can authorise, when the Lok Sabha is not in

session, expenditure from the state consolidated fund

pending its sanction by the Parliament, and

4. the President can promulgate, when the Parliament is not in

session, ordinances for the governance of the state.

A law made by the Parliament or president or any other

specified authority continues to be operative even after the

President’s Rule. This means that the period for which such a law

remains in force is not coterminous with the duration of the

proclamation. But it can be repealed or altered or re-enacted by

the state legislature.

It should be noted here that the President cannot assume to

himself the powers vested in the concerned state high court or

suspend the provisions of the Constitution relating to it. In other

words, the constitutional position, status, powers and functions of

Use of Article 356

Since 1950, the President’s Rule has been imposed on more than

125 occasions, that is, on an average twice a year. Further, on a

number of occasions, the President’s Rule has been imposed in

an arbitrary manner for political or personal reasons. Hence,

Article 356 has become one of the most controversial and most

criticised provision of the Constitution.

Table 16.1 Comparing National Emergency and President’s Rule

National Emergency (Article President’s Rule (Article

352) 356)

1. It can be proclaimed only 1. It can be proclaimed when

when the security of India the government of a state

or a part of it is threatened cannot be carried on in

by war, external aggression accordance with the

or armed rebellion. provisions of the

Constitution due to reasons

which may not have any

connection with war,

external aggression or

armed rebellion.

2. During its operation, the 2. During its operation, the

state executive and state executive is

legislature continue to dismissed and the state

function and exercise the legislature is either

powers assigned to them suspended or dissolved.

under the Constitution. Its The president administers

effect is that the Centre the state through the

gets concurrent powers of governor and the

administration and Parliament makes laws for

legislation in the state. the state. In brief, the

executive and legislative

powers of the state are

assumed by the Centre.

subjects enumerated in the make laws for the state to

State List only by itself, that the President or to any

is, it cannot delegate the other authority specified by

same to any other body or him. So far, the practice

authority. has been for the president

to make laws for the state

in consultation with the

members of Parliament

from that state. Such laws

are known as President’s

Acts.

4. There is no maximum 4. There is a maximum period

period prescribed for its prescribed for its operation,

operation. It can be that is, three years.

continued indefinitely with Thereafter, it must come to

the approval of Parliament an end and the normal

for every six months. constitutional machinery

must be restored in the

state.

5. Under this, the relationship 5. Under this, the relationship

of the Centre with all the of only the state under

states undergoes a emergency with the Centre

modification. undergoes a modification.

6. Every resolution of 6. Every resolution of

Parliament approving its Parliament approving its

proclamation or its proclamation or its

continuance must be continuance can be passed

passed by a special only by a simple majority.

majority.

7. It affects fundamental rights 7. It has no effect on

of the citizens. Fundamental Rights of the

citizens.

8. Lok Sabha can pass a 8. There is no such provision.

For the first time, the President’s Rule was imposed in Punjab

in 1951. By now, all most all the states have been brought under

the President’s Rule, once or twice or more. The details in this

regard are given in Table 16.2 at the end of this chapter.

When general elections were held to the Lok Sabha in 1977

after the internal emergency, the ruling Congress Party lost and

the Janta Party came to power. The new government headed by

Morarji Desai imposed President’s Rule in nine states9 (where the

Congress Party was in power) on the ground that the assemblies

in those states no longer represented the wishes of the electorate.

When the Congress Party returned to power in 1980, it did the

same in nine states10 on the same ground.

In 1992, President’s Rule was imposed in three BJP-ruled

states (Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan) by

the Congress Party on the ground that they were not

implementing sincerely the ban imposed by the Centre on

religious organisations. In a landmark judgement in Bommai

case11 (1994), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of this

proclamation on the ground that secularism is a ‘basic feature’ of

the Constitution. But, the court did not uphold the validity of the

imposition of the President’s Rule in Nagaland in 1988, Karnataka

in 1989 and Meghalaya in 1991.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, while replying to the critics of this provision

in the Constituent Assembly, hoped that the drastic power

conferred by Article 356 would remain a ‘deadletter’ and would be

used only as a measure of last resort. He observed12 :

“The intervention of the Centre must be deemed to be barred,

because that would be an invasion on the sovereign authority

of the province (state). That is a fundamental proposition which

we must accept by reason of the fact that we have a Federal

Constitution. That being so, if the Centre is to interfere in the

administration of provincial affairs, it must be under some

obligation which the Constitution imposes upon the Centre. The

proper thing we ought to expect is that such Articles will never

be called into operation and that they would remain a dead-

letter. If at all they are brought into operation, I hope the

precautions before actually suspending the administration of

the province.”

However, the subsequent events show that what was hoped to

be a ‘dead-letter’ of the Constitution has turned to be a ‘deadly-

weapon’ against a number of state governments and legislative

assemblies. In this context, H.V. Kamath, a member of the

Constituent Assembly commented a decade ago: ‘Dr. Ambedkar

is dead and the Articles are very much alive’.

Scope of Judicial Review

The 38th Amendment Act of 1975 made the satisfaction of the

President in invoking Article 356 final and conclusive which could

not be challenged in any court on any ground. But, this provision

was subsequently deleted by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978

implying that the satisfaction of the President is not beyond

judicial review.