Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent : Live Updates From Supreme Court

Singhvi: the problem is in my case, if it differs with the last judgment, it will disturb the law unlike in the other case where the law was implemented. If mylords can find a way to not disturb the tamil nadu, I have no problem

J Narasimha: what followed in this case has happened, it is an opinion. In subsequent case, if you refer an opinion and ask the court to take different decision, the argument was it can't be relied because it was an opinion

CJI: we are expressing view of law and not decision in Tamil Nadu

Singhvi: unlike in 2G, where issue in earlier bench was auction

CJI: it is specifically answered in para 65.

Singhvi: if you say per incuriam, burden lies with the State. Please see conclusion in Kaveri, the problem is

CJI: not necessary to read all paras marked by your junior

Singhvi: I am not reading half of it.

Singhvi: Kaveri is cited to say that there is no intent in 2G to overturn Kaveri.

View of law v decision of the law- heart of the nuance. Please apply nuance, but not in this case. This is my submission.

Singhvi: indirect endeavour to overturn 2G

Singhvi says appellate jurisdiction is not vested in the supreme court in Article 143.

Singhvi says a reference can only be made when the issues have not been decided.

Singhvi: refers to a judgment where central government made a reference to the tribunal where an issue was related to a judgment of the court

Singhvi: your lordships under Article 143 is binding, a matter is referred, the law will change for future. Suppose, in appropriate matter, it is referred..otherwise kindly consider advisiory jurisdiction, it becomes intra-court appeals

J Nath: this is not right, you are presuming we will null the two judge judgment

CJI: show us one judgment where in a division bench, a reference is not tenable. We are not deciding the issue whether tamil nadu is correct or not

Singhvi: in the event, the answers is not consistent

CJI: we are not concerned with that

J Kant: its purely advisory

Singhvi: once Article 143 is delivered, because my lords is the Supreme Court, i can't disregarded

J Kant: purely advisory, it may or may not be accepted

Singhvi: the decision can't be changed, the view can be changed, the naunce in 2G. Mylords J Kant says we won't be touching the case, but the law and case is infused. All questions if answered other than the division bench answered will constitute a change of law and also for the decided case of tamil nadu.

CJI: Are your argument is to accept it?