Sr Adv Niranjan Reddy: in advisory jurisdiction, mylords are invited by President on legal advise on what they have to do. In Special Courts reference, mylords answered that if it's a Bill, the property can't be touched by the Court until it becomes the law.

Your lordships would be advising the President/Governor, normally in judicial review, the two-judge was cautious. But mylords treat it as purely constitutional question, there may have been a doubt on the mind of the President on what is meant by as soon as possible, or should the Governor/President be mindful in reference in Article 201.

The doors are now open by the President. What may otherwise be an inevitable factors, mylords can now specify. If my lordships find that Governor/President are expected to act preferably within 3 months, it only becomes only mylords option but it ends up becomes what they will be bound by.

This issue, advisory jurisdiction, Canadian constitution continues to have it. The Australian removed it. US does not have. Indian Constitution cautiously choose to retain it.

This reference needs to be seen from constructive perspective, not confrontational.

Governor has no discretion. He has no options. All the options available only for council of ministers which Governor is bound to follow. This is the original intent.