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

Singhvi: imagine the harm we are causing to settled scheme- opening words of A.200 are short-either he assents, withholds assent therefrom and reserves.

Middle word is or that he withholds- Constitution chooses not to be silent as to what happens when you withhold assent that proviso must follow.

CJI: otherwise the word as soon as possible will be rendered otiose if you withhold for eternity

Singhvi: it is completely artifical distinction dichotomy made between withholding and returning- withholding must lead to return. There aren't separate options.

Proviso is directly linked to the second option-withholding is the first step and returning is the second step. Last line-shall not withhold assent is the same as the body

CJI: first option is to give assent, third is to send to President

Singhvi: that's why the proviso meant for the second option. Saying he can withhold simplicter, it will make a mockery of whole proviso

Singhvi: learned Solicitor that Article 207 requires recommendation of Governor and consequently even money bill can be withheld is completely misplaced because it is intended for something completely different- 207 does not give any special government of discretion to the Governor as said in Valluri.

Singhvi: purpose of A. 207 is to bar a private member to move money bill and even then, the governor is bound.

Singhvi:' [reads Article 199(3)]-decision of Speaker on money bill is final-see the implication of withholding money bill-see the proviso-return the bill if its not money bill-207 is the answer to the money bill because Governor would have recommended it-completely wrongly invoked

Singhvi: Article 199(3) decides if a bill is money bill or not, as a Speaker I certificate it and it is sent back Governor and he withholds it

SG: I never said money bill can be withheld

Singhvi: Mr Salve argued that it will apply to money bill also and Mr Mehta also supported and invoked Article 207. He said it is not neccesary to have exemption because money bill will come with recommendation of the Governor only

Singhvi: it would incentivise the Governor to hold on indefinitely a Bill because Governor would know that it is mandatory to send it back the second time- you make the first proviso zero because then why should he do it at all? absurd negative, entire concept of first proviso liquidated.

Singhvi: my third head is he has three options and let us accept for two and three, he is not bound by aid and advice-in any event, the Governor does not have any fourth option available to him.

Singhvi: Valluri judgment referred.

CJI: but Article 163(2) can't be said to be tiny strip

Singhvi: its not implied discretionary tank of power. It has to be subordinate to the overll scheme of the Constitution.