Kaul: they are incapable of being adjudicated. It requires objective criteria- there is operative complexity- consultation with ministers, etc- this can't be compared to exercise of powers under Article 356. It is sui generis. Under Article 356, there is failure of constitutional machinery and there is a report of the Governor- the court felt this is subjected to judicial review.

CJI: If discretion under Article 356 is justiciable, why not under Article 200?

Kaul: there are a lot of complexity involving constitutional concern, inter-se relationships etc- mylords have categorically held that assent by President is not justiciable because there is no legally manageable standards. Argument can't be what happens when Governor sits on bill indefinitely?