Supreme Court Hearing-Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent-DAY-5 : Live Updates

Arguments to continue on 2nd September.

Singhvi: falls through means it has to go back and not come back.

Kameshwar judgment is dealing with a completely different issue.

CJI: why does it says unless

Singhvi: if the state does not return it, the bill falls through

J Nath: then there is no question of Governor granting assent

Singhvi: nobody has plucked out these words

J Narasimha: where is the concept of falling through? the bill lapses. It has created much problem in its interpretation but if it goes back, falls through is not the correct option

Singhvi: mylords are right but fortunately they have added 'unless'. Suppose if the Government sends it back, will the bill fall through? We are considering whether withholding simplicter is a head by itself. Sub arguments are that I hold it back and it falls through-as subjective absolute discretion-everything I read about discretion nullifies. It swallows the entire article.

CJI: what about bill falls through?

Singhvi: when the State does not return the Bill. The proviso and second option

CJI: it does not say the Government has to mandatorily return it

Singhvi: please see Mr Mehta's para 100(examples are given)-this is a basis for saying Governor should be given judicial review powers-mylords have said that this is not the way to do constitutional adjudication looking at extreme scenarior.

Singhvi: you may have had provision for second option- you have to leave it to the court. When you had first chance, the legislature had two chances-somebody said, mylords are right because you are final.

He has no business in repugnancy but if it is so repugnant, why not use the first reference to send it to President of India.

Singhvi: third option- each of the three are mutually exclusive since disjunctive 'or' is used. Valluri says these are non-overlapping options. It is contrary against everything to allow Governor to use reference after return

CJI: suppose he find repugnacy to the central statute and reconsiders and if legislative passes without any modification, it can't be reserved?

Singhvi: he's reference is bound by aid and advice in the first option. On second basis, I send him bill and he finds

CJI: in his wisdom he gives an opportunity to the legislature and if better sense prevails

Singhvi: he can do by referring it first but he can't do it second because it then violates the first proviso. If there is repugnancy, he is not a judicial reviewer. Somebody said, the elected government has duty to do right but it can do wrong and that's why it is the court which can set it right

J Narasimha: CJI's question was on the interpretation of the proviso

Singhvi: if he withholds indefinitely-he powers become larger than Article 200-dominating will. Mylords have read may as shall hundreds of time.

Kameshwar wrongly applied.

CJI: how will you take the two other judgments where it is said that if the Governor does not take the option of proviso, the bill falls through?

Singhvi: Valluri and Rakmeshwar has nothing to do with that subject but it says that if the State does not sends it back, it falls through. One word is taken up to say...

J Nath: your argument is that he has to mandatorily send it back then why may is used?

Singhvi: may is meant that he, in a particular circumstance, wants to withhold assent and he may then send it back. This happens after you withhold assent.

J Nath: why complicate it with may and shall

Singhvi: may in proviso links to previous line-three options he has which may not arise in first and third, and in second, once you reach that option, there is no further option. Falls through happen when State may not spend it back...the may does not give him option that he never sends it back to State. Textually, the proviso has to be in 'shall' the moment he withholds assent.

Singhvi: second proviso is given all weight and first proviso is not related to second option-how can we interpret proviso like this? unheard of- the argument can be you must overrule the three judge bench because there is no other way! it is contrary to the previous judgment that the bill falls through

CJI: it uses the word 'unless'

Singhvi: doctrine of law-purposive interpretation. Two points- withhold assent is the focus of the proviso and second, as soon as possible becomes meaningless if such interpretation is accepted.

Third aspect, withhold or returning are not mutually contradictory, it signifies parts of the same component. Provisos have to be read in the connect in which they are read.

In Punjab, we saw the whole scheme of Article 200.

Singhvi: can you return a bill without withholding? second argument, as soon as possible becomes useless because there is a fourth option of eternity. We have a chart of Telangana, AP, Tamil Nadu bills- indefinitely semi-permanent withholding-20 examples

SG: I have many such bills then, we are not arguing on facts

CJI: whatever we are laying down, we won't lay down for a particular party; we will be interpreting Article 200.

Singhvi: premature intervention; it is nothing to do with adjudication of facts. I have giving chart where it is pending for 3 years before Governor and one year before President