Supreme Court Hearing-Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent-DAY-4 : Live Updates

Singh: TM Pai judgment referred.

Singh:

Singh: Manoj Narula judgment referred.

Singh refers to some judgments.

Singh: judgments on legislative act under Article 200- Union of India v Valluri.

Singh: Article 145(3) and Article 143- two routes under the constitutional scheme for correcting a view- referring to larger bench and President coming forward. But why minimum of five? if there is any consistency and if there is no decision, Article 143 is maintainable. Where an existing judgment is of five and mylords want to achieve consistency, a reference can be for more than five.

Singh: just note few provisions- Article 97(2), 109,

CJI: learned SG has given a chart where timelines have been provided.

Singh: even also for deemed assent

Singh: makers thought fit to provide that at first stage, the Governor takes his discretion that it is not to be returned or assented and it will be withheld...with regard to two other arguments, about the judicial review and time line, Article 74 and 163 distinction is there- Article 74 does not have provision pari materia to Article 163.

Singh: Article 200, the original consideration on first presentation, it can't be said under constitutional scheme that governor has no jurisdiction to withhold which means it would fall, only on second presentation the route followed is the proviso.

bench assembled.