Gill had submitted before a division bench of the court that Swaraj and Naqvi harboured malice and malafide intention against him and took all possible steps to get him removed as chief of Prasar Bharati.

The bench comprising Justice R C Lahoti and Justice C K Mahajan adjourned the matter for October 14 when it would hear arguments to prove whether the act of promulgating the Prasar Bharati ordinance was intended with malafides on part of the ministers. ``Before issuing the notices, we would decide whether ordinance can be challenged on the grounds that the ministers had malafide intention behind the act,'' the judgesobserved.

Attorney general of India Soli Sorabji stated that an ordinance had the assent of the President making it a law and a law cannot be challenged on the grounds of malice and malafides.

However, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Gill, disputed saying that an ordinance was not law but only had the effect of law. An act has to go through the Parliamentary procedure in both the Houses before becoming a law. This practice was not fulfilled while issuing the ordinance, he added.

Sibal said, ``We have to see the motive behind the introduction of the ordinance. If the motive is malafide, it could be challenged in a court.''

Sorabji contended that it was an established fact that a Presidential ordinance could not be challenged in the court.

While agreeing that an ordinance cannot be challenged if it involved a policy decision of the government, Sibal submitted that if an amount of malafide was involved on part of anybody in the introduction of the ordinance, the matter was open to be adjudgedby the court.

He argued that the President only acts on the recommendations of the Cabinet and hence the motive of the ministers in introducing an ordinance has to be verified.

The court had on September 2 refused to issue notices to the ministers on Gill's petition challenging the ordinance on the grounds that no case appeared to have been made out but had directed Gill to file an affidavit listing the relevant statements of the ministers in support of the allegations of malafide against them.

The former Prasar Bharati chief contended that the two ministers, have over the past few months through their statements and acts, made determined attempts to discredit him publicly and ensure the removal of the petitioner from the post of the chief executive.

Naqvi had levelled serious allegations of a scam involving Rs 1400 crore allegedly involving Gill, the affidavit said.

It was apparent from the news reports that the ministers were unhappy with Gill's refusal to allow Prasar Bharati to become amouthpiece of any political party. Thus, they introduced the ordinance and in effect removed Gill from the post, the affidavit said.

Gill had in his petition challenged the constitutional validity of the Presidential ordinance and sought the quashing of the same on this ground. Contending that the ordinance was violative of Article 123 of the Constitution as no urgency had been justified for its issuance, Gill stated that the Prasar Bharati (amendment) bill, passed by the Lok Sabha, should have been brought up in the Rajya Sabha.