A lacuna or discrepancies, time will tellFamous constitutional expert Mr Salman Akram Raja has rightly pointed out the difference between "May" & "Shall". Apart from that there'e some other implications as pointed out by him. Only time will tell the grievances of these discrepancies. Here's what Salman Akram Raja said; "More than a bit surprised by the Army Act Amendment Bill passed yesterday. It says the President 'may' re-appoint or extend the chief on the advice of the PM. This contrasts with the use of the word 'shall' for the original appointment. The bill then says the exercise of 'discretion' by the Appointing Authority in the matter of re-appointment/extension will not be called in question in any court. The bill has made re-appointment or extension a presidential function in the domain of his discretionary powers! The bill also relates re-appointment or extension to existence of national security and other exigencies. How does this oust a writ or 184(3) petition that discretion has not been exercised on the basis of objective facts? It does not. The exercise of power to re-appoint/extend by the President under Article 243 is bound by the PM's advice under Article 48. The proposed amendment that seeks to convert re-appointment/extension into a function in exercise of the President's discretion appears ultra vires Articles 243 and 48".