Supreme Court Hearing-Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent-DAY-7 : Live Updates
Sibal: Only question is, if it is sent by legislature and he still withholds it-that is the only area mylords have to see. But remember, as a matter of constitutional law, the executive to interfere with the will of the people.
Theoritically, has any State legislature passed a law violating it?
J Kant: the power of Parliament under proviso under Article 254 is not a substitute to reserve the power of the President to refer, these are two independent powers. President may assent and it becomes a law and meanwhile, the Parliament passes a law saying it is repugnant
Sibal: absolutely right, it can happen anything but that solution is provided, which is not that I sit on it.
J Kant: in other words, proviso to Article 254 is the second filter that if such law is passed, the Parliament...
Sibal: there is no question of 6 or 3 months, it has to be forthwith. What happens when you sent the bill, he doesn't deal with it- what happens as soon as possible? this is not even hypothetical
2. the process should be completed under Article 161, and if its not completed, he has to sent it forthwith
3. if it reaches President, GOI must forthwith send it back
Once the declaration of law is there, there will be no declaration.
Sibal: Article 254-repugnancy-Parliament has a way out if they think its repugnant, they can immediately pass a law which is a constitutionally provided solution. So, the point is, there is a constitutionally provided solution, this is just a bogey to make such the bills of the legislature is not passed.
J Narasimha; bills not enjoying legislative competence may be assented and it is only in the later part the law has to be passed?
Sibal: you can't have executive becoming an impediment to the will of the people
J Narsimha: your argument is that it will only be tested in a court
Sibal: there are assumptions made that a law will be made on foreign policy etc but mylords can't deal with such situations...they say, don't refer to West Bengal, TN but refer to my facts
Sibal: let's assume that for the consideration of President, there is element of space for the GOI to say no, but what is the consequence? litigation. Does the Constitution contemplate such a situation?
CJI: good for the Bar but not good for the country
Sibal: it is a living document, it deals with situation such as governance, you will have to resolve it constitutionally and not over cup of tea
J Narasimha: if it goes back, the Governor has to assent but what is there is in text which prevents the Governor to not referring it to the President?
Sibal: text is he has to accept it. Governor has to clear it, but as far as GOI is concerned, it may not clear it. So, he has to clear it because of immediacy. There can't be any impossibility of not clear it, and it does not have to be 3 months but forthwith. If he does not do so, you have to make an architecture that the will of the people is not subjected to whims and fancies
J Nath: why different language in Article 111 and Article 200 [Article 111 says he shall not withhold assent]
Sibal: nobody imagined a situation that this would happen, the issue has not come before and it only came in 2022
J Narasimha: constitutional text does not say that President has no option but to assent is that what you want us to supply to the text?
Sibal: he can't say no because that is the only way for the Constitution to work
Sibal: Article 200 can't be read in a manner to create an impasse...all these conjured facts about foreign policy, mylords should not even look at it any situation which has no relevance.
On timelines- there may be extraordinary situation where he feels he has to refer, but as soon as possible forthwith must apply to Governor and the President who acts on aid and advice of the Union Cabinet. The same necessity must be engrafted to the actions of the President for it to work.
Let's assume that he keeps it with himself, the will of the
J Narasimha: I am saying if the Constitution compels that the Bill has to be assented?
Sibal: yes
Sibal: Article 356-this is completely irrelevant to this issue. Article 356, he recommendations on satisfication which is subjected to judicial review. That does not apply to Article 200. Their arguments on A. 356, 161, are also not relevant.
On Article 311, see the proviso to sub-Article 2-it also deals with satisfaction. These are recommendatory, Governor has no power. Either you comply or send it back.
Sibal: You see, the Prime Minister goes and briefs the President. Say, one nation, one election, he goes and informs the President. That is where the cup of tea happens. This is where the cockbills are cleared.
Sibal: two imp provisions- Articles 158 and 167-Governor is not a part of the House- A. 158
duties of the Chief Minister to the Governor, requiring them to communicate all decisions of the Council of Ministers regarding state administration and legislative proposals, furnish information as requested by the Governor- A. 167