Supreme Court Hearing-Presidential Reference On Timelines For Bills' Assent-DAY-6 : Live Updates

Singhvi: refers to judgment on purposive interpretation-mylords would be reducing it as mere formality, pious but with no teeth.

Singhvi: I have a chart here of TN and Kerala which gives all Bills which in more than 30 days...

CJI: Learned SG said he has many charts

SG Mehta: I am ready to travel the dirty path

Singhvi: suppose there are states other than TN and Kerala

CJI: 1947, SG Mehta Article 200 and 201 was not there. For 1947 to 1950, we have to rely on GOI provisions

Singhvi: allow me to make my submission. We understand that you are threatening that all ill-evil actions of Governor is from 1950...assume that I give illustratively 10 examples, and he has 50, two wrongs do not make a right.

CJI: we don't want to go into facts

J Narasimha: our decision is not data based

Singhvi: but it depends on contemporary realities and felt necessities-I have a chart which has 4 illustrative proposition

CJI: we are not going to decide which political dispension was in power or not

Singhvi: can mylords ignore that sole case of TN, 56 Bills maximum delay is 1257 days, 3 bills more than 1000 and 6 six-500 to 1000 days

J Kant: this also contains the bills passed in April, then we will have so many bills...eventually consider the point of as soon as possible and you are wanting a timeline

Singhvi: considering contemporary realities and felt necessities of time

Singhvi: no timelines can be given is a principle for adjudication of criminal cases- P Ramachandran Rao referred.

Singhvi: mylords created CEC because there was a constitutional silence. In our case, there is clear 'as soon as possible' provided.

CJI: it dealt with election commission

Singhvi: yes, unoccupied field

SG Mehta: it was provided that till the law does not provide, it can be done

Singhvi: if mylords provide 1 month timeline, tomorrow government enacts that there should be minimum 6 months, mylords timeline goes

Singhvi: Anoop Baranwal referred.

Singhvi: just because founding fathers did not envisage a distortion today, does not mean mylords can't check it.

Singhvi: Keisham- no timeline for constitutional authority-mylords specified three months.

CJI: 3 months in the facts of the said case

Singhvi: where there is nothing occupying the field directly and there is contemporary necessities, then mylords can apply

CJI: that's why I applied in Telangana. Authors would not have imagined that speaker could continue to sit

Singhvi: look at all commissions-Sarkaria Commission said within one month from date; Punchi Committee-six months; Venkatachaliah National Commission-period of 4 months for assent, then they said delete the word withhold the assent.

Singhvi: absence of timeline is what enables the court to impose timelines.