Supreme Court Hearing-Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent-DAY-7 : Live Updates

Sibal: tell me which reference has been asked like this? when it happens, it happens and it will be answered but we can't take questions like this and answer. How is Article 131 likely to arise? How is it relevant?

Sibal: I have sent out here all references made in past, and no reference is similar to this one because in all, a specific question has been raised. Mylords, I request you to be careful in dealing with a hypothetical situation not dealing with facts- it is argued that the Governor has immunity, he can withhold, etc

Sibal: In Nambudiri, the question was bill survives or not after assembly dissolved, court says it does but there was no question on timeline. To read a judgment like that to say the court did not prescribe timelines and therefore there should not be any timelines, is wrong

Sibal: Oriental Insurance v Raj Kumari referred- that is why in the 2G case where auction was described, the question arose does it applies to other case? mylords said that as far as spectrum is concerned, its fine but it does not apply to other case.

Sibal: the President has to give assent and litigation will take its course if its repugnant, violates the rights or whether legislature had the capacity. But he has no power not to assent and the question which mylords have to answer is what happens if despite he does not do that. That's the only area mylords have to create architecture-deemed assent or whatever

Sibal: there is no act in the constitution which makes the executive not accountable but this is the provision [Article 361] where you will give him that.

Sibal: if you allow the Governor the personal power to take a decision, neither GOI or State is involved, how will Article 361 apply? GOI can't defend him State Government is at odds with him.

Sibal: on justiciability- Article 200 is not a provision, unlike Article 356, which requires Governor's satisfaction and is subject to judicial review.

Sibal: there are judicially manageable standards which are integrated to Article 200- immediacy, forthwith, as soon as possible, without delay.

He said, if you give timeline you are amending the constitution- no, it is to ensure that the Article functions.

There is no self-executive consequence no failure of adhering to timeline, it only open judicial scrutiny. Quite frankly, this is not my argument but this is what TN said.

TN judgment provided timeline based on a memorandum recognising delays. That is the memodraum on which TN relied. The Sarkaria and Punnchi Commission recommended timelines. That's not my argument, I am against timelines because if you violate it...

Sibal: the concept of judicially manageable standards- directive principles of state policy are not judicially manageable standards even equality because that is in area of policy or rule of evidence.