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

SG: [Are the decisions of the Governor and the President under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution of India, respectively, justiciable at a stage anterior into the law coming into force? Is it permissible for the Courts to undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a Bill, in any manner, before it becomes law?]-why this has arise? because two judge says it is prudent for the President to make reference to this Court because the question of repugnancy is a legal question.

SG: NJAC was declared illegal, it was passed unanimously but your lordship protected separation of powers saying one member from executive can't be a part of it.

J Narasimha: like how political executive came up with tenth schedule

SG: Parliament did it, there was a problem of aaya ram, gaya ram

CJI: we are having petitions from four States

SG: there are problems but this may not be the solution

CJI: we are not in appeal over judgment, what is from day 1, if from four years...

SG: your interpretation can't be based on

CJI: we have petitions from two three states now, Kerala, West Bengal, Punjab...consider a suggestion where Governor ought to but sits over four years, what happens to democratic set up or the 2/3 majority by which the state is elected and represents will of people

SG: I would not like to answer....

SC: In Kihoton, the Court said we will finally set it aside but we can't do anything as interim.

SG: [refers to the question of President on justiciability] can someone come and say, this act under Articles 200 and 201 are justiciable?

CJI: if there is no decision...[reads the question]

SG: we have faced the case where court said the assent is deemed to be granted. first time, the Acts came into force on the assent of the Supreme Court. These Acts in TN mentions that Bills have been assented by the Supreme Court.

SG: there judgments cited in TN judgment for justiciability-first Bommai-there the Court came to a conclusion that there are judicially manageable standards- it was in respect of Article 356.

Second judgment cited is Manipur Tribunal-Speaker is a Tribunal, he is amenable to judicial review. There is no dispute.

Another judgment is Perrivalam- if we can have judicial review of functions of President, why not here? But the case was about pardoning and not a political question.

These three judgments leads to no conclusion that it is justiciable. Hoesct judgment holds the field, that is my submission.

SG: restraint in exercise of judicial powers of high constitutional functionaries is a facet of separation of powers, which is a basic structure of the Constitution.

SG: State of Rajasthan v UOI referred.

SG: precursor to Bommai, referred in TN judgment.