Supreme Court Hearing-Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent-DAY-9 : Live Updates

Adv: Once it is held that withhold simplicter is not there, then council of ministers advice has to be followed except in the second proviso. In case of repugnancy, the council of ministers aid and advice could be given. for violation of constitution, president can be impeached. Similar provision is not there for Governor because he

Sr Adv Siddharth Luthra, for Andhra Pradesh: We support all submissions of Union except that Article 32 petition will not lie in any matter.

Adv: providing timelines, an example was given about trials. That situation is not akin to this example. A trial is askin to when Bill is in assembly. We can't assume in how many days the house will pass. There is instances, in my state, one bill was passed for change to university's name, it was not given assent.

Jain: Article 111, Indian President has pocket veto in one case when the central ministry is shaky or government does not have majority in the house. He can keep indefinitely

CJI: not indefinitely

Adv: I have filed petition in chattigarsh High Court has not been assented to. Most have been covered, what i would like point-constitution is supreme, will of people must prevail and rule of law. Rule of law requires enactment of new laws, and in my submission, it is urgent. A law which can't even wait for a house to sit and decide, then it could be promulgated under Articles 213, and 123. There is essence of time because you don't wait for the house to sit and pass.

There is one provision which requires president's consideration. There is no corresponding provision for withholding. Something which is not there is 213 can be interpreted to be in 201 to provide pocket veto.

On as soon as possible- Articles 62 and 68- in Article 62(2)when casual vacancy occurs, it says as soon as possible not later than 6 month. But Article 68 does not says that, but it does it mean the election of vice president not important? he chairs the council of ministers. As soon as possible shows urgency.

Adv Jain: Article 361 are given protection in criminal and civil matter and not in constitutional matter.

Bansal: question is can specific timeslines be laid down? and that is the ramification if as soon as possible comes up in other provisions.

my first submission, mylords have ample powers under Article 142 to do complete justice and it is not limited to specific case. There is nothing to prevent to lay down systematic guidelines. It has to be seen whether it violates constitutional provision or any statute. My submission, laying down timeline does not change the nature of article 200 and 201.

second argument, as soon as possible can't be thrown into an amphorous and read with Article 142, there can be timelines.

In this debate between legislature and executive, question is citizen of india is not a sitting duck. Let us see, I come from area where there is no Government hospital or bill. Article 32 is filed and state brings a bill and Governor sits over it, as a citizen I have no voice. It is opportunity to consider right to time as a concomitant to Article 14.

Adv Avani Bansal: I will restrict to timelines, I will make only three arguments. one annexure which I have put-it is a table where we have said that there are actually four categories of timelines running through the Constitution. It is something like an undercurrent-

1. first where no timeline is provided-Article 161, the court has read reasonableness. Para sixth of 10 Schedule.

2. where specific timelines are mentioned- 123(2), 213(2)- six weeks

3. there is third category as soon as may be- 17 times referred

4. then as soon as possible

There is a paragraph which shows the difference between 'as soon as may be' and 'as soon as possible- Ramkrishnan Arora- it is not by chance that as soon as may be is used 17 times and as soon as possible is 7 times. All these terms and categories can't be through into a reasonableness period.

Mylords have historic opportunity to laydown as soon as possible as a meta principle of higher threshold. It can be said that while reasonableness is the underlying principle, it is more than that.

Shankarnarayan: i have given five instances where mylords will step in. That happened in this particular case-speaker decision, election commission appointment, SCAORA where mylords imposed timelines on itself.

Wilson: all questions, TN Governor's judgment is the complete answer.

Sr Adv Gopal Shankarnarayanan, for two intervenors(one advocate and one DGP): See Article 145(4)-this is a recognition of what took before Constution was in place. It copied passed S. 213 of the GOI. What mylords are doing is a completely different jurisdiction, and here it has been asked by citizen one for guidance.

If for a minute mylords see A. 374. Mr Dattar mentioned estate duties case, one of the references. it was very criticial on what they say about advisory jurisdiction. The first on delhi laws did not deal but second one did. The same aspect of A. 143 is done dealt by nine judges and noted in privy council by 11 judges and then by Chandrachud's judgment.

The role that is being discharged in advisory jurisdiction is effectively not more than what a law officer would do for the state government.

CJI: we will be answering the questions, whether it has binding force or opinion

SG Mehta: I have serious objection to this. This is not a report to the President. He has to be respectful

J Narasimha: this point can be skipped

Shankarnarayan: I am saying rather than revisiting, mylords, the role is very limited. no dispute has to be adjudicated- as a result Article 141, 144 does not apply to this provision. If you see none of the 15 judgments have referred to Article 145(4), none have overruled previous judgments...Around 10 questions have been answered in the judgment.

Please note, this is not a recent issue. Grandville Austin chapter, I have attached how Morarji desai faced with the issue and the solution has come.

Mr Salve said that if state passes a bill, the central government via the Governor can withhold-it is answered that the Governor is not amenable or accountable to the direction of the Government of India.

On Article 200, three aspects not shown

1. in end of first clause, it ends with colon before the first proviso. At end of first colon, there is colon- it came before J Arun-whether second proviso attach itself to the first proviso- answer was it attaches itself to the immediately preceeded.

There are five provisions in which there are reservation for the President including second proviso to Article 200. Barring those five, interpretation is clear that every single bill is cleared. Question is when?

Wilson: I have said that the court can interpret the constitutional silence. What HV Kamath feared is coming to us. If timelines is not fixed, we will be wandering in courts. I filed writ petition in 2023, and 2025 the judgment was delivered. For 2 years, I was wandering in court. I have extracted a memorandum passed by the central government says the bill has to be disposed of within 3 months and cabinet has approved, it has flavour of Article 74. What is the problem with court doing it?

Wilson: granting of assent not exercise of legislative power but a part of legislative procedure- Kaiser-i-Hind.

on immunity- Rameshwar Prasad- immunity goes not take away the power of the court to test validity.

State of Rajasthan judgment very imp- whether constitutional authority acted within or exceeded authority, it is for the court to decide. No authority can be a sole judge to decide it.

On judicial review- SR Bommai, State of Rajasthan, AK Kaul judgments etc-

for questions 1 and 2, extent of power to Governor, I have quoted BR Ambedkar's speech where he says Governor to not have any kind of function...

Only three ways the Governor has and he always have to act on aid and advice. On fall through, much was made on Valluri. Our submission is bill dies where it is born.