Singhvi: Governor action or inaction has nothing to do in making them parties personally.

question 5 and 7-regarding timelines-

1. deletion of timeline in earlier draft and substitution 'as soon as possible' is in no way a fetter on insertion of timeline in regards to felt necessary and contemporary realities-it does not act as estoppel

2. earlier, the 'as soon as possible' was added to mean that bills pending would not lapse pending in dissolution of assembly

3. purposive and teleological interpretation is necessary to effectuate the spirit where absence of approach would frustrate the scheme

4. you can't have pious hope and no remedy- to justify that timelines should not be said-Union's argument is powers are high plenary, he argues Article 200 requires Governor to apply mind independent and Governor has to consider international aspects, political questions- why doesn't he fight elections for the CM?

CJI: why can't he consider

Singhvi: he can't withhold or kill the bill, and he can't be the judge of this. That is why the structure is delicate. if the issue was he can't think, they would not have provided proviso one. We are passing unconstitutional bills every day, supposedly unconstitutional-but if there is majority, it is introduced and then mylords see it.

Punjab is a completely valid judgment and considers this issue of 'as soon as possible'