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

Singhvi: For instance atomic energy and all- those says no natural justice etc because there are high [sensitive] matters. but if that is applied to texture of Article 200 and 201 to say there is thicket! the only intention is for the court not go into real issues.

Singhvi: your lordship finds that Governor is wrong for withholding assent for 1400 days-what is the unmanageable standards here? if mylords do not give full remedy then...the argument of judicially manageable standards does not arise.

Singhvi- though pure legal questions camouflaged by the political questions are always justiciable.

Singhvi:

Singhvi: the judiciary is the designated organ to ensure the supremacy of the Constitution...See Bommai

Singhvi: in the Articles where discretion is available, even there mylords have done full judicial review-my friend says where there is no discretion, there can't be judicial review- where wide discretion is available, judicial review has been done.

No justification for this court to accept the English cannon...

Singhvi: Nebam Rebia- the only exception to non-participation in the legislative process is the promulgation or ordinance-A.213.

I have serious objections because it turns over head the constitutional schemes [referring to Mr Mehta's arguments on justiciability]-even grant of assent can be subjected to judicial review by private parties- it can only challenge on vires of statute-it can't be based on allegations. These are all created controversies. Any bill challengeable by private party when it becomes an Act. After it happens, it is on usual constitutional grounds...none of this can involve challenge of assent by Governor or President-completely erroenous argument.

Equally fallacious is the prerogative power argument- we are republician constitution antithetical to such powers.

CJI: like Article 356

Singhvi: Governor does not exercise legislative powers- he is a part of legislative powers.

CJI: contention is that he is a part of the legislature

Singhvi: he is a part of legislative power. Any argument of him exercising legislative power is constitutionally fallicious argument.

CJI: whatever arguments under Article 200 and 201

Singhvi: he is the mover of the Bill, it goes to the House-lower and upper house-in that sense, he is a part of the process...Nebam Rebia clarified this.

Singhvi: 3, 4, 6 and 9-justiciability-neither Governor nor President enjoy any general high prerogative power immune from judicial review-supremacy of the Constitution. Judicial review has been held to be a part of basic structure...may diverse examples where he has discretion, judicial review is never ousted.

Kihoto prevents quia timet actions- with greatest humility, no application to this argument. Even in ordinary statute and even Article 361, in respect of any actions have never been interpreted to oust judicial review.

Singhvi: two more points-crucially think is a separate head of withholding will overturn the entire constitutional scheme-making Governor super legislature-super CM. Keeping simply in limbo, the Governor kills the bill. Killing of bill is only available to Cabinet Government. It can't be a power of killing the bill then there will not be any constitutional scheme.

There is no other procedure known for falling through-only Article 200 and 196 which is lapsing of Bill.

There is obviously no fourth and fifth option and only option is the second proviso which gives discretion.