Supreme Court Hearing-Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent-DAY-3 : Live Updates

Kaul: 'shall declare'-the words used, and then words used are 'either' he assents

CJI: if Governor for time immemorial does not declare he is withholding, is the court powerless?

Kaul: let me first deal with construction and if situation emerges that Governor sits over for years, I will address.

Each actions have consequential effect-assent becomes Act; withholding assent- Bill falls; third part is it goes to the President. Fourth, more in nature of preliminary option, that is, as part of consultative process. There is a consultative process also envisaged that he sends recommendation that he wants them to reconsider, he may think there are constitutional issues or repugnancy. He thinks before sending to President, he sends to the House. What he can't do after is to withhold.

Kaul, for State of MP: construction of Article 200, the issue of governor sitting over bill, not acting, I will deal with it later. On pure construction, our submission is there are three options in the main body of the Article, each have a finality and consequence attached to it. Each have to be preceded by affirmative action of declaration.

SG: even repugnancy is to be decided by the Court, the question is can it be decided anterior to the passing of Bill.

SG Mehta concludes his submission.

Sr Adv NK Kaul will argue.

J Narasimha: where is the direction in TN judgment that in repugnancy, the President must seek opinion

SG reads the question

CJI: you know the nature of Article 32 petition we face everyday

Sibal: the question need not to be answered

CJI: we can take it some other time

SG: can I come back, let me take instruction

SG: deemed assent- this is a facet of Article 142-I am not citing any judgment. The question is, can this Court substitute itself and do what the other constitutional functionary is required to do?

Article 142 can't be used to amend the Constitution. Forget deemed assent for time limits etc. It is not a part of Article 142. You have used it to do complete justice when there is no legal solution.

We have collated provisions where deeming is provided by the Constitution. One question which J Narasimha asked in regards to Article 32 and 131, yourship may not like to answer. It can be kept open [question 14]

CJI: if President want to seek advice is for the President to decide.

SG: Kindly see the hazard. Suppose...

CJI: we will have to leave all other work and give advice to the President under Article 145(3)

J Narasimha: this 12th question does not stand on its own

SG: assumes two fundamentally flawed questions- the president is unable to decide for herself whether there is repugnacy or not, and lordship will examine anterior to the assent of the Bill