Attorney General Soli Sorabjee in an affidavit before a Division Bench comprising justices R C Lahoti and C K Mahajan, said the ordinance was not directed against anybody.

``It is incidental that as a result of the restoration of the Act to its original form, the petitioner, former Chief Executive Officer S S Gill, ceased to hold the office of the Prasar Bharati Corporation (PBC),'' the affidavit said.

``The need for restoring the Act to its original form arose in as much in October 1997 as major amendments were made in the Act by way of an ordinance, whereby provisions which were central to the scheme of the Act, were either deleted or modified beyond recognition,'' it said.

Gill had challenged the ordinance promulgated by the President on August 29, contending that it wasbrought with the ``sole purpose'' of removing him from CEO's post as the then Information and Broadcasting Minister Sushma Swaraj and Minister of State Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi were having ``mala fide

intentions'' in this regard.

Three more petitions challenging the ordinance were also filed subsequently and the Court clubbed them together with Gill's petition.

The Attorney General said the allegation of ``mala fide

'' by Gill was ``incomprehensible'' as an ordinance was a law and no law could be challenged generally on this ground.

Sorabjee said a plea of mala fide

has to be clearly pleaded with material particulars, but Gill had failed to point out any averment which would be ``sustainable'' even against an administrative order.

The petitioner's contention of non-existence of condition for promulgation of the ordinance was ``equally misconceived'' as it involves question of ``subjective satisfaction of the President and is beyond the pale of judicial review''.

``At a time when bothHouses of Parliament are not in session, circumstances exist which render it necessary for President to take immediate action and his satisfaction in this regard is not justiciable,'' the affidavit said.

Meanwhile, Gill today sought time from the Court to study the Government affidavit before arguing on his plea seeking notices to Swaraj and Naqvi.

Gill's counsel Niti Rakshit submitted that the copy of the affidavit was supplied to them only this morning and they would require some time to study it.

The Bench adjourned the hearing to December 14, directing all the petitioners to submit synopsis of their line of arguments a week before the next hearing.

The Bench, while issuing notices to the Centre and Prasar Bharati Corporation last month, had refused to issue the same to Swaraj and Naqvi, saying it would like to hear arguments before deciding on this course.

Giving the sequence of events, the affidavit said Prasar Bharati Bill was passed by Lok Sabha but before it could be taken up by Rajya Sabha,Parliament session came to an end.

Since the matter was very urgent, the Government had no alternative but to promulgate the ordinance, Sorabjee said, adding there were numerous instances of bringing ordinances with Bills being passed in one House and pending before the other.

The original Prasar Bharati Act of 1990, which was unanimously passed by both the Houses of Parliament and got President's assent, remained unnotified for seven years before the United Front Government issued a notification on July 22, last year and made certain changes in its structure through an ordinance in September 1997, he said.

By restoring the original 1990 Act, the present Government has fixed the upper age limit of Corporation's executive members at 62 years and provided for establishment of a broadcasting council to adjudicate upon the complaints regarding its functioning, the affidavit said.

Besides, appointment of full-time members for finance and personnel was considered essential for an organisation which hasannual advertising revenue of Rs 575 crore, budget of Rs 2,363 crore, assets of over Rs 40,000 crore and 40,000 staff, the Attorney General said, adding that there was immediate need to restore the accountability of Prasar Bharati to Parliament.