Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent : Live Updates From Supreme Court

AG: Tamil Nadu judgment proceeds to say Governor is bound by aid and advice, but if bill is not constitutionally compliant, where is the question of withholding assent or seeking aid and advice

AG says if questions of law have been decided by conclusive authority, then that would not be substantial question of law. But if there are several conclusive authorities such as two or three judges bench, a conclusive authority is needed.

AG: Court exercise original and appellate juridiction, in that context if court finds importance questions of substantial importance, to interpret the provisions of constitution. Therefore, the daily stuff Article 14 and 21 is different. We are talking about very special class of provisions

J Narasimha: the moment substantial question is referred, the court will have to refer it to five?

AG: 2G talks about if there is conclusive authority, that is different but if there is contrary views, the court will say I am duty bound to refer; its a high responsibility. The moment court enters a field occupied by different judgments...

J Narasimha: you should not ask it in advisory jurisdiction. You should ask in regular

AG: We have Tamil Nadu judgment where in breach of Article 145(3), the court answered questions. It is important for the President to know

AG: If court were to say, notwithstanding the question of constitional importance, a two judge bench can decide, it will be directly contrary to Article 145(3)

AG: there are judgments of five judges, if you disagree, it has to go to five judges. We are trying to point out, if its an issue of constitutional importance, in those categories for working of the constitution and its integrity, Article 145(3) imposes a mandate.

CJI: whenever any question involving question of law

AG: substantial question of law

J Narasimha: it is a broad contour, its not mandatory. But why does we answer this court?

AG: Article 145(3), is it mandatory for the bench of supreme court to decide if the question involves substantial question of constitutional interpretation and that it should be referred to five judges

CJI: if you go through this exercise on Monday and Friday, we will have to sit till 12 at night

AG: In Kerala written submission, the Presidential reference is not adverted. I don't propose to go into proposition 4. What we are seeking is that the state/view of law.

CJI: this court encroached upon legislative powers or sought to re-write the constitution, that's your main submission?

AG: it is a matter of textual amendment to the constitution. In guise of interpretation, can court go to the extent in saying I will take pen and paper and rewrite the constitution?

AG: 1 and 2 propositions related to maintainability, proposition 3, the doctrine of separation of powers injuncts the court what only legislature can do. Tamil Nadu judgment substantially rewritten Article 200 and 201, and whether it wil be against separation of powers is a matter of public importance