Supreme Court Hearing-Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent-DAY-2 : Live Updates
SG: if he does not choose option of first proviso, the bill falls through. Otherwise it has no meaning.
CJI: first proviso to that Article deals with a situation where Governor is bound to give assent
SG: he can still refer
CJI: according to you, its his choice?
SG: let me explain again, he has three options in main proviso- give assent, withholds- bill falls or refers to the President. Fourth option, if repugnacy or tweeking required, return to the house to reconsider, once required, the embargo is he can't withhold but then he can still refer to President. That is not prohibited.
SG: The parliament amended the law because judiciary is unable to do within a time limit
CJI: as well as election commission, J Ashok Sen specifically says that the proceedings take so long that...
SG: symbol matter
SG: Right from Kihoton, speaker is held to be a tribunal
SG refers to Kameshwar Singh judgment.
SG: power with plenary, it has to be left to his constitutional discretionary. That's the way power of constitutional functionaries function.
J Narasimha: take 10th Schedule, law was made everybody supported. Speaker is the best authority, today if we were to interpret 10th Schedule, in our experience we might decide in a different manner. Interpretation is not frozen, it is a process. Without reference to poltiical process which happens, it would be difficult
CJI: can the interpretation be static? In telangana case, there was that the timeline was not there for Speaker and it was that J Rohintan introduced timeline..the law officer Sen Tgave an example that by the time we own proceedings before election commission, it has become infructuous...we will get in a situation operation successful but operation dead. We believe in separation of powers,
SG: In some cases, President returns the Bill and Bill is again passed, it comes to the President, it dies. If we were to accept withhold in the main provision to mean temporarily decided to not give assent- suppose main part of 200 contemplated withhold means suspension of powers- as Punjab Gov judgment says refer to the House. Then it would have been that the President 'shall' grant assent.
SG: Why there is requirement of Presidential assent? that Bill does not be in conflict with national policy stipulated.
SG: he has wisdom. Governor are seasoned people as political parties, years of experience. Whenever bill is presented, Governor calls CM says these provisions are seriously doubtful. Sometimes, the CM says we will sort it out. Every problem which may arise under Constitution may not have solution in legal proceedings. When Bill is referred to President, there is a procedure stipulated.
SG: There is nothing above President. So, both provisions in same document, word withhold used in two places leads to one conclusion. Central passes a law, and some State passes a law that this law will not apply and Bill is presented, can he assent? no. can he refer? no. palpably wrong. Withhold in rarest of rare circumstances- his existence as constitutional functionaries and his oath to defend the Constitution requires him. Unless this is read, Governor office will become postman.