1. Summoning The House : Governor vs Chief Minister  The political crisis in Rajasthan has raised several questions of constitutional interpretation and morality. A key question that arose is  whether the governor, in exercise of his powers under Article 174, could defy or delay in heeding to the advice rendered by council of ministers headed by chief minister . Article 174 of the Constitution provides that “The governor shall from time to time summon the House or each House of the Legislature of the State to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session.” Does this mean, the Governor has discretion to summon the House as per his discretion disregarding the advice of the council of ministers headed by the CM? A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Nabam Rebia judgment (July 2016) had scrutinised the provision in the draft constitution and its final version as Article 174 and ruled – “we are satisfied in concluding, that the governor can summon, prorogue and dissolve the House, only on the aid and advice of the council of ministers with the chief minister as the head. And not on his own.”  Further down the judgment, the 5-judge bench appeared to attach a significant explanation to its terse interpretation of the governor’s powers on summoning the House. It had said, “We are of the view, that in ordinary circumstances during the period when the chief minister and his