Supreme Court Hearing-Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent-DAY-5 : Live Updates
Singhvi: Shamsher Singh accepts deletion of discretion and says "tiny strips" of discretion available for Governor:
Singhvi: there are three options- this discussion of discretion arises in second and third option- Ambedkar says that in responsible government, there can be no room of discretion for Governor. The intent is clear.
Singhvi: on SG submission that they had parallel main clause-wrong submission.
Singhvi: In A. 200, neither main clause or proviso leaves discretion for Governor...it may be stated conceptually, the structure provides for three options read with first proviso which tells the methodology and manner.
CJI: that's what is done by two judge bench, though we are not in appeal
Singhvi:in respect of the second option, it is entirely possible that the assembly wants to reconsider some options or put it on hold and in such situation can't be customised and in such situation the assembly can bind in aid and advice for the return. Similarly, State can decide that certain situation requires Presidential reference....certain provisions expressly requires presidential option-286, 304 etc.
Section 75, GOI Act 1935-two discretion in body and proviso. In draft constitution prepared, the word discretion was removed from main clause but retained in proviso-the Governor may in his discretion return-one possibility is it is bound by aid and advice.
It came to drafting committee, it retained in the proviso. Now, Dr Ambedkar consciously move amendment to remove discretion in the proviso as well.
Singhvi: there is strong material in Shamsher and Nebam and at least three speeches in CAD that all options-assent, withholding and reserving are only intent to facilitate law making. Ultimately Governor is only facilitating. Why have second option sending back? There are many situations where Governor wants rethinking. On third option, the Government frequently knows that this requires Presidential assent or the Government is in doubt that there is competence issue
CJI: if Governor has doubt that there is repugnancy
Singhvi: he has discretion.
CJI: that's your alternative issue?
Singhvi: yes, that he has limited discretion
J Narasimha: what happens in 286, 287 when Bill comes to him because then the council will not advice?
Singhvi: he has no option. the bill may be illegal...constitutional scheme will not change in terms of aid and advice
J Narasimha: once it comes back, he has no option-is there a possibility for him to reference to President now?
Singhvi: the entire structure of Article 200 is the initial stage structure. He can take changes, the referral back can be a device to send it to President.
Singhvi: I have done now with my proposition that on such general discretion was not envisaged. The thrust is clear that you are not there without specifically conferred discretion.
Singhvi says this whole argument of general discretion with Governor will create chaos while referring to the debates.
Singhvi: 'exception in so far' expression under Article 163- constitutent assembly debate being read-
Arguments to continue post lunch.