Constitutional expert and BJP member in the Rajya Sabha LM Singhvi dubbed KR Narayanan's move a ``somewhat hasty presidential directive.'' The office and functions of the President of India took its colour from the Crown in Britain, he said, remarking: ``The Queen certainly would not have issued the directive our President chose to issue to the Prime Minister.''

Thakre had said yesterday that while the BJP would honour the President's word, ``there is really no need for it (confidence motion).'' In fact, Home Minister LK Advani also spoke in a similar vein in the Lok Sabha today. He even invoked the German Constitution under which the Opposition would have to come forward with a concrete proposal for an alternative government at the timeof moving a no confidence motion.

The party spokesman, KL Sharma, preferred not to comment on Singhvi's statement. ``The President has given his directive and accordingly we have followed it by moving the confidence motion. I will not like to drag the President into this,'' he said.

Singhvi said that in the law of the Constitution and the law of Parliament there were many grey areas. Whether the President should have directed the Prime Minister to seek a vote of confidence in the currently uncertain arithmetic of parliamentary support could be characterised as one of those grey areas, according to him.

In the circumstances of the current political situation, the withdrawal of support by the AIADMK ``did not constitutionally necessitate the instantaneous and somewhat hasty Presidential directive,'' he said, giving the following reasons.

One, because the Lok Sabha was scheduled to reconvene today. Two, the AIADMK was not without its remedy by way of a motion of no confidence. Three, it was for thegovernment of the day to react to the new development in the first instance. Four, the President should have conferred with the Prime Minister in the first place and should have sought his response. Five, the government could have decided on its own without the presidential directive either to seek a vote of confidence or to tender its resignation.

Singhvi noted that the first principle of parliamentary government was that the council of minister should command the confidence of the majority in the Lok Sabha. ``That is why provision is made and an elaborate procedure is laid down in the rules of Lok Sabha for motions of no confidence. It is not appropriate to supplant or preempt those provisions and procedures nor is it necessary to add a presidential dimension to what belongs essentially to the parliamentary battlefield,'' he reasoned.

He noted that it was arguable that the presidential directive ``was unnecessary and impolitic'' in the circumstances of the present case. ``It was also somewhat hasty andpremature with a tendency to force the issue or precipitate the course of parliamentary proceedings,'' he remarked.

Singhvi described the argument that Vajpayee was bound to take a vote of confidence after the withdrawal of support by the AIADMK as ``flawed.'' This was because the composition of parliamentary majorities was not frozen. The parliamentary game had its own rules and the President was under no constitutional obligation to oblige any one in the game ``so promptly without even asking the Prime Minister for his response in the first instance,'' he said.