Explanation:

In Cooper case11, (1970), the Supreme Court held that the President’s satisfaction can be questioned in a court on the ground of malafide. This means that the decision of the President to issue an ordinance can be questioned in a court on the ground that the President has prorogued one House or both Houses of Parliament deliberately with a view to promulgate an ordinance on a controversial subject, so as to bypass the parliamentary decision and thereby circumventing the authority of the Parliament. The 38th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975 made the President’s satisfaction final and conclusive and beyond judicial review. But, this provision was deleted by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978. Thus, the President’s satisfaction is justiciable on the ground of malafide. Hence statement 2 is incorrect.Ordinance making power of the President is an executive power which only work due to advice of council of ministers hence it is not discretionary,statement 3rd is incorrect.