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

SG:

J Kant: we are in advisory jurisdiction, we are not in appellate. In Article 143, we will answer that. The court can render an opinion that a certain judgment does not lay down correct law but it will not overrule the judgment.

SG: in 2G and cauvery, in answering reference, mylords can overrule

SG: Could the bench of that strength decide the question when reference to five was asked

SG: highest head of executive is seeking guidance, the judgments of five, three, and two have created constitutional problem

J Narasimha: you can't expect supreme court...

SG: Am I bound to intimate everybody? I am bound by timeline?

SG says all reference have been answered except Babri Masjid reference.

SG says overruling is a consequence of inherent powers and not appellate powers.

SG: two distinctive factors in 2G, one of the questions was whether judgment of two judges lays down correct law- it was an appeal, the principal argument was with respect to maintainability. Now, in this context, in judgment in 2G, please bare in mind, mylords don't generally go into judgment already decided not as jurisdictional issue but it is a self-imposed restriction under advisiory jurisdiction but in 2G, mylords said even that is permissible.

SG: Article 143-question of law arisen and likely to arise. I will read few paras of 2G. There are in all 15 reference, all were with regard to a particular issue. This is for the first time, the President felt functional disharmony arisen and will arise because no authoritative pronoucement because two bench fixes timeline for another authority. There is constitutional functional problem- how governor and President would act.

AG: Article 143 reference is suis generis, whatever President thinks is advisable, there is no particular form. President's hands are not tied. Even if the field is occupied, the court can enter and agree with any of the judgment [on Venugopal sTamil nadu judgmment no referred in reference]

AG: if mylords look at Tamil Nadu and Punjab, the line can be completely drawn. We are talking about state v view of law. I am saying, you can't say the doors are closed as per 2G judgment, because as and when President says the issues are of public importance