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

Salve:because you are creating a veto- word veto does not fit in our constitutional debate. What we are saying, the power of this high constitutional functionary may extent to stemming a bill because that is quite consistent with scheme of Article 201.

If Governor sends back and it comes back, two out of four is ruled out. he can then either grant assent or reserves for President.

J Narasimha: we are not on abuse of power but on interpetation

CJI: while deciding the matter, we will not look at the Tamil Nadu matter.

Salve: Article 200 in the fourth option, removes money bill because that has been done. Despite that, if money bill is passed as recommended by Governor is not accepted, nothing withhold him from withholding assent. If fourth option does not accommodate money bill because it is introduced with recommendation of Governor. Proviso is introduced for recognising the consensus that the Governor is trusting the wisdom of the assembly.

J Narasimha: how do you reconcile that money bill be rejected at the outset by the Governor by substantive provision and in proviso again he has the option

Salve: yes

SG Mehta: Article 207 is the answer, there is no question of withholding

J Narasimha: therefore your argument that he can withhold the money bill goes

SG: there is no question because the money bill has to be introduced on recommendation of the Governor

Salve: there may be a third situation-money bill is introduced by Governor, Bill may undergo changes, if what is approved does not accord with Governor, he can withhold.

Salve: the proviso, if interpreting or reading it to the main part is correct, it would have used 'shall'. For same constitutional functionary, he uses both may and shall.

Salve: it arises because of the preconceived consequence of reading the powers. Article 200 language is plain, but that means that he can...

J Narasimha: how do you understand the proviso not occuring in substantive, that why even Money bill can be straighway withheld.

Salve: yes, he can. Let's put proviso to one side. Look it in reverse- without any preconceived notion. Article 200 is untrammelled If framers knew that there is separate class of legislation called Money Bill, all they had to do is...we are doing is picking up words and adding because we feel there should be some limitation.

Look at proviso, one of the three options is limited- Governor under duty to make a declaration, the plain language says- the governor shall declare! he has to make a declaration- assents to the bill/withholds assent therefrom/or reserves for President. Then, fourth option, he returns with a message to assembly. Fourth is being used to...the first option. These are high constitutional functionaries enacting legislation.

Salve: by itself, there is no disharmony between the two provisions. What is our federalism is that there provisions provide.

J Narasimha: issue is not so much about withholding, occuring by virtue of Article 201 proviso, President by virtue says Bill will be represented, we are not on that issue. We are on Article 200 and proviso, Union says power of withholding stands on its own. Independently exercise withholding, it gives rise to four option/or adjunct to second option, that aspect is problematic- threshold if Governor withholds, textually that is a problem because even Money Bill be can withhold. Assume if substantive provision can be read with proviso, at second stage the Governor can send it to President, which TN says it can't and only when it is send to President under Article 201, the procedure will begin.

Salva: Article 74 is untrammelled- we don't have discretion powers of President. This distinction is characterised in federalism.

Salve: We have legislative procedure in Part V, this culminates in Article 111- assent is the last step in legislative procedure [Reads Article 111]. There is no further question of referring the bill. This Article would have different connotation had Article 74 not being there because all functions can't be without aid and advise.

CJI: we understand it as constitutional harmony

Salve: we don't start with any preconceived notion. I don't propose to read any judgment, just read the Article. If Article 201 is picked up, mylords have been told repeatedly, each words are carefully calibrated.

marked the words -shall be presented against to the President- the words shall not withhold assent is conspicuous- high constitutional functionaries...

CJI: Dr Ambedkar said how federalism works and how the scheme is different...he said, except emergency, the States would work under spheres allotted to them, and Union likewise and except for emergency where powers stands with centre unitedly.

Salve: understanding of Articles 200 and 201 has become legislative competence-centric. The state legislatures are legislatures who have the right to make laws. In our federalism, two parallel models- Union and State legislature. Constitution treats them differently, and we can't read it differently. For eg, Article 74.

Salve: If veto is not anathema to the constitutional scheme, then let us start without any preconceived notion seeing what language of Article 200 leads to.

CJI: Governor has veto to withhold assent?

Salve: it would be unchartiably characterised as veto, better to say he has power of withholding. Veto is something we use for personal interest that's why uncharitably characterised.

What defines our federalism? marked difference in scheme of Union and President as against legislative provisions relating to States.

CJI: Union has right to reject a bill by legislature? can that be exercised for list II? even if there is no repugnancy?

Salve: yes, Article 201 has no limitation. 254(2) is a different matter

CJI: What happens to Union reserved for List I, State for List II?

Salve: that is Article 254(4)