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

arguments to be continued post lunch.

CJI: your argument is that he has three options available again?

Singh: the moment there is obligation to present is afresh, the Bill comes back to first part of Article 200 and the three option is available and the second option will be controlled by the proviso.

Singh: proviso hybrid in nature- first part expands the second option to make the fourth option; second part create a negative postulation.

Sr Adv Maninder Singh (for Rajasthan): importance attached to declaration- the legislative process is on that the legislature has prepared the Bill- the concept is of representation followed by declaration.

When bill is passed- presuppose the legislative exercise-my emphasis is event of presentation in a legislative process- from this stage for the exercise of discretion, the process starts. When presented to Governor, it is inbuilt that he examines, and the three options becomes available for him. Presentation followed by all three events followed by declaration. It does not create any connect with the proviso. On second option, it is permitted that Governor withholds assent thereform- which necessarily leads to falling of the Bill.

Salve: whether or not plain language should be read by reading in the proviso is a substantial question of law for Article 145(3).

Salve: on maintainability-no jurisdictional bar for the President even if the Court has decided an issue.

CJI: court can ask Governor why he is withholding?

Salve: no why! the court can ask what is the Governor doing

SG Mehta: In Kesar-i-Hind, the contention was whether governor granted assent or not, the Court said we can look in files to whether assent is conditional or not

Salve: the court can ask what is your decision and not 'why' this is your decision

Salve: no greater construct that judicial review is excluded. In 254(2), there is inquiry as to legislative competence, a question may arise as to what extent the President shall approve the laws? Kesar-i-Hind says, look at the files.

Salve: 3. without making the Governor answerable there is no test to examine the correctness of withholding, that means, the inability of court to examine shows that judicial review is not contemplated. If court was to entertain a petition why Governor not granted assent, court will have to ask because Article 200 does not give any reasons. Governor will have to be answerable, if Court finds assent wrongly withheld, it can't issue mandamus to grant assent and this can't be a remedy under Article 142 that it is deemed to be passed. Assent can't be given by Court.

Salve: completely in teeth with Article 361.