There is also little consensus among these legal luminaries on the choices currently before the President. From elections to a national government, the alternatives proposed varied from individual to individual. But there was broad agreement that stability was the need of the hour.

Expressing total dismay at the political developments at the Centre, Justice PP Bopanna, former High Court judge and former Member of the Judicial Reforms Committee, did not want to add more to the comment that ``a complete rethinking is necessary''. ``The system of coalitions will never work in India'' he said with finality.

Even as most others felt that fresh elections should be the last option, former High Court judge ND Venkateshdiffered. He was among the few who said that if the Congress or any other party could not muster support to form an alternative, then the President should dissolve Parliament and recommend fresh polls. He firmly opposed the suggestion that the BJP should be recalled in the event of the other parties not being able to establish majority support. When a sitting ministry has lost the confidence of the Parliament, they should not be allowed to ``manipulate'' and return to power. There is no precedent for it in the Westminister model which most parliamentary democracies follow, he said.

Former Advocate General RN Narasimhamurthy disagreed sharply. It is the ``President who messed up the whole thing'' by asking an ``established government in power to seek a confidence vote''. He said, ``in all fairness to the BJP'' the President should ask them to come back if they prove their majority in compliance with Article 74 of the Constitution. This could be under ``the same leader or another leader'' headded.

Narasimhamurthy was also open to the idea of a National Government to which the President could nominate a Prime Minister. But at no cost should any other party but the BJP be allowed to form the caretaker government, if elections become inevitable, he said.

Former High Court judge HG Balakrishna put the National Government on the top of his options with Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister. He saw this as the ``best solution'', after the President has discussed the matter with all the political parties. To him elections were the ``last option''.

Another retired High Court judge MS Patil felt that the National Government idea would not find approval among all the parties, so it was not an option. At the same time, he felt that if the Congress is unable to muster adequate support to form the government, then the BJP should be recalled. Though there is no precedent in this regard, under the circumstances it should be allowed. Otherwise ``elections will be thrust on the people and the country cannotafford to spend money again''.

KN Subba Reddy, President of the Advocates' Association, Bangalore too felt that the President should ask the BJP to form the government again, since there were ``lots of divisions within the Opposition''. The entire situation was unstable and serious. He too agreed with Narasimhamurthy that the President's ``timing was wrong'' in asking the BJP to seek a vote of confidence, especially before the Budget. ``Every advocate feels that there should be stability in the country, irrespective of the party that comes to power'' he added.

Justice RG Desai, yet another retired High Court judge agreed with them both that the President would be ``justified'' in recalling the BJP, since they had lost by just one vote. There was no need for the President to have asked the BJP to seek a confidence vote, he said. He too, like Narasimhamurthy, felt that it was the responsibility of the Parliament to have established that the BJP had lost the confidence of the House, by defeating the FinanceBill. ``The Constitution does not provide for the President to direct Parliament to pass the Finance Bill'' Narasimhamurthy pointed out.

Justice Balakrishna however said he was opposed to the idea of recalling the BJP on ``principle''. There was no point in taking back a government that had lost the confidence of the House, he said. ``Whether the party lost by one vote or a hundred, the result is the same. This is a democracy of numbers'', he said but nevertheless added that though a whole lot of electoral reforms were required, every political party seemed to be ``shying away from it''. This was not in the interest of the country, he said. The current situation makes a mockery of the system.