Supreme Court Hearing-Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent-DAY-6 : Live Updates

Singhvi: six weeks was dropped and draft which came, came with 'as soon as possible'-accepting as soon as possible means immediately, Dr Ambedkar retained it.

CJI: one suggested have as soon as possible but not later than six weeks

Singhvi: sequence is original draft is six weeks, then came as soon as possible which was retained.

Singhvi: when you find repeated inaction, you impose time limits. They were almost there. Oversimplistic argument is made that under Article 111, the six weeks was dropped and that's why you can't have time limit-

Singhvi: Governor action or inaction has nothing to do in making them parties personally.

question 5 and 7-regarding timelines-

1. deletion of timeline in earlier draft and substitution 'as soon as possible' is in no way a fetter on insertion of timeline in regards to felt necessary and contemporary realities-it does not act as estoppel

2. earlier, the 'as soon as possible' was added to mean that bills pending would not lapse pending in dissolution of assembly

3. purposive and teleological interpretation is necessary to effectuate the spirit where absence of approach would frustrate the scheme

4. you can't have pious hope and no remedy- to justify that timelines should not be said-Union's argument is powers are high plenary, he argues Article 200 requires Governor to apply mind independent and Governor has to consider international aspects, political questions- why doesn't he fight elections for the CM?

CJI: why can't he consider

Singhvi: he can't withhold or kill the bill, and he can't be the judge of this. That is why the structure is delicate. if the issue was he can't think, they would not have provided proviso one. We are passing unconstitutional bills every day, supposedly unconstitutional-but if there is majority, it is introduced and then mylords see it.

Punjab is a completely valid judgment and considers this issue of 'as soon as possible'

Singhvi: mere withholding simplicter is an interim stage- de-facto we are on this side doing quia timet action barred by Kihoton-how two unlinkable are linked-completely misleading and red-herring. These are no quia timet actions at the first place. Simplicter is not an interim act but final act decision of intentional inaction not envisaged in Article 200. How holding back and keeping in cupboard an interim action? it completely killing the bill! its not medias res[meaning limbo].

1. there is nothing temporary about withholding simplicter

2. not askin to Speaker acting in tenth schedule

3. 361 does not touch upon decision which is open to challenge through judicial review

CJI: Minera Mills-where it emphases judicial review is part of basic structure-the controvery may be political in character but so long it raises a constitutional question, the court can't decline to answer it-

Singhvi: argument was it destabilises the constitutional balance then the Governor and President would be immune to judicial review and it will be antithetical to separation of powers.

Singhvi: Minera-Mills referred-Mylords first entry in judicial review under Article 32 and for High Court is 226 together it is the judicial review callous.

On Article 131 question, he [Mr Mehta] concedes and then formulates an additional question to file Article 32, which the president never asked.

Singhvi: The prerogative was mostly used for pardon. Kesavananda Bharati referred-Mr learned friend's argument is red-herring-

Singhvi: clearly mylords have discretion for President and Governor for pardon-see the judicial review exercised-whole scale! For Article 200, discretion is only for second proviso.

Singhvi: 1. decision can be challenged on all available grounds

2. includes challenge to mala fide ground

3. Even in mala fide, the Secretary files an affidavit-just because Governor has immunity does not mean mala fide remains unchecked