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

SG: the data has to be shown

CJI: we did not permit them, that is not fair

SG: this is not figures

CJI: if you objected to their data, then you can't give data. You argue on questions of law

SG: from 1970,

CJI: On Mr. Solicitor's argument, we will not go into that

SG: some of the submissions compared the President of India under the Constitution is like British crown-Mr Datar read some judgment that British crown can't withhold-we have to understand that we have not blindly followed it. It is a herediatory crown while our president is indirectly elected. He is supposed to act on aid and advice of council of ministers who are again elected. It can't be compared to British crown.

Essentially, Governor's role is guardian, protector and representator of Union, and a person who takes the interest of entire nation because he represents the President. Mylords will recall KK Venugopal gave a list of dates, I fully agree that consultation is how the Constitution works and this is how it has worked. Now, we are raising a false alarm

CJI: how can you say? if the bills are pending with governor for 4 years

SG: I am respectfully urging there can't be a straightjacket formula

CJI: your one line argument is he can withhold indefinitely

SG: yes, instead of referring the bill in Punjab, he should have withheld it. Right from 1970 till date, only 20 bills across the nation are withheld out of 17,000 by the Governor. This is not a power to be exercised with the drop of the hat but something atrociously...I have data to show that 90% of bills are assented to within 1 month, and then 3 months and then 6 months.

Dr Singhvi: my learned friend objected vehemently

Sibal: all bills are 4-5 years, we didn't give data. All this is happening post 2014

SG: I am praising your government

Sibal: you should because no governor acted like that

SG: almost many judgments say that governor's duty has to be read in terms of the oath he takes. As I will point out, we should be proud as citizens that constitution and aspiration of the constitution has withstood. Irrespective of governments in powers, Governors except some aberrations have acted in way supreme court has desired.

SG: Punjab water dispute reference-these are circumstances that it is not possible to abide by the aid and advice of council of ministers but to act independently.

CJI: you are relying on this part?

SG: this part that there can be circumstances that you can't act

J Narasimha: in this context, is there anything question relatable to this?

SG: it is fact-specific; this was a case where federal issue, rise of other Neighbours, cross-border issue and pendency was involved. I am not saying council of ministers would act mala fide, but considering the situation, it would not be the case that council of ministers would ask the governor to not give assent.

SG: he is not a super chief minister, neither he is expected as said by Dr Singhvi. One example, in Punjab water dispute, an agreement was entered into by GOI, Punjab, Rajasthan and Haryana. A part was going to Pakistan, so it had cross-border issue and federal issues and the agreement was sought to be cancelled, and the Governor granted his assent. Thereafter, Punjab filed a suit.

I am suggesting, in a situation like this, he is duty bound to withhold assent or refer to the President. Ultimately, Hon'ble President made a reference to this Court.

SG:

SG: seven judges say 'ordinarily bound'- implied discretion read. Dr Singhvi virtually said he is a nobody, sitting for the Government of India: grant of assent is legislative power for Governor.

SG: I am emphasizing on oath of the Governor- Governor and President only two functionaries who execute a different oath- defend the constitution and law

first submission is, there are certain implied discretion and of them is his duty to preserve protect the Constitution.

Article 167, these are responsibilities of hon'ble chief minister. In this context, read BP Singhal v UOI:

SG Mehta: Mylords, at the outset, it is not the contention of the central government but some states have filed reply that centre is opposing. This is our interpretation, it is not interpretation that he has unbridled right to sit over the bills.

It is not a question of me being a petitioner or etc. It is the question of assisting the court that this is the view of central government or states. It can't be taken in straighjacket rejoinder thing.

J Narasimha: we have the opportunity of two extreme views and we will have to balance it, its an enormous task

CJI: and the task of 16000-17000 pages, unfortunately there is no vacation as well

J Nath: 25,000 pages

SG Mehta: i would not reduce the august jurisdiction of a mere giving report not binding etc. mylords opinion is a law declared, mylords can even declare that the judgment does not lay down the correct law. The president of india has sought mylords opinion and mylords are interpreting while giving opinion.

arguments:

1. government has no power to withhold in any circumstances

2. has no discretion in any circumstances- in every situation he has to act in aid and advice-he is a postman-

3. he has not to apply his mind to process

4. action is judicially reviewable

5. governor is answerable like any other executive authority like any other routine executive functionaries- governor is a compotent of legislative assembly, he can't vote but he is a part of the legislative process

6. governor must act in a set timeframe

to be continued post lunch.