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

J Narasimha: you say there is nothing like pocket veto, though we can't specify a time limit, but there has to be a way the process works out.

SG: what you are pained at, it will not confer with jurisdiction. We are not flooded with cases which such instances have arised. One or two States have come. Remedy lies with the Parliament. Mylords have said, in view of this we request the Parliament but your lordship does not direct. That's constitutional comity..Suppose Governor is sitting over bills, there are political solutions and it is not everywhere the CM rushes to the Court. CM goes to the PM, telephonic it is sorted out. Such impasse is solved. But it will not confer jurisdiction to lay down time limit even if there is justification. Such issues are arising in last many decades, but statesmanship and political maturity allows them to keep the centre...they come together and a political solution is found.

SG: In case of decision of nature Governor takes, it is poly-centric, it does not tick boxes. They may take some consultative process, there can be several reasons for delay.

P Ramachandran case referred- why time limit can't be prescribed in conclusion of criminal cases-

SG: In some facts, the timelimit may be justified but justification can't confer jurisdiction.

SG: There are judgments which I have cited that even in statutes, courts can't add, substitute or omit words. Court can suggest a competent legislature. One judgment, I am not reading, where J Narasimha was also in bench Supriyo v UOI. It was not reportable. It was the LGBT matter. Those judgments including electoral bonds cite this but this Supriyo judgment remains unreported. But important judgment laying down seminal questions of constitutional importance.

SG: wherever a timeline was stipulated, it was deleted. But wherever it was required, it added. The constitutional framers were conscious of it.

I have compiled constitutional provisions where Constitution itself stipulates timelimit- Article 209, etc. TN judgment, which mandatorily stipulates time limit relies upon Punchi and Sarkaria Commission, itself says these are our recommendations and we recommend appropriate constitutional amendments. Reliance may not be correct because commission does not say it has to be by judicial adjudication.

SG: something very serious- one constitutional organ prescribing timeline for another constitutional organ-statutory functionaries can be bound by it, but would be apply to coordinate constitutional functionaries?

SG:

SG: B.K. Pavitra referred-

SG: Mylords are right that every case, it is not necessary the Court will exercise Article 145(3) but this was a case where only issue was constitutional interpretation.

CJI: According to you, Article 200 Governor has ample discretion?

SG: it is wrong to say he is bound by aid and advice in every matter.