According to constitutional expert K K Venugopal, it is not easy to pass a judgement on the issue as this does not have a precedence in the country. According to Venugopal, one needed to see whether such a situation had ever taken place in England and how was the English Constitution interpreted to tackle the situation. "One needs to go through a lot of documents to pass a judgement, if any."

Venugopal said in difficult situations former President R Venkatraman also used to refer to similar situations which had happened in England and base his decisions on the English interpretation of the constitution. "In the given situation, taking leads from England's experience is the only way out."Supreme Courtlawyer Kapil Sibal feels that the government's decision does not have any legitimacy as it has lost the power to take policy decisions. Sibal said that under normal circumstances the President has to listen to the council of ministers as the council is answerable to the assembly. However, since under the current circumstances the matter cannot be debated in Parliament, the government does not have the authority to take any decision, said Sibal.

"In the absence of an alternative, the view of the president, who is the highest constitutional authority, should be honoured," said Sibal.Another Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan feels that legally the matter falls in a grey area.

"The constitution does allow a caretaker government to take certain major decisions. But one has to see whether the telecom decision can fall under the category of decisions which cannot afford to wait".

Bhushan, however feels that the President must have done his own studies on the Indian constitution before asking the governmentto suspend the telecom decision till the next government was formed.

On whether it was right for the prime minister to disregard the President, Bhushan said, "I can't say whether it was legally right or wrong but I feel that morally it was incorrect."