Reorganisation

Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay

Facts:

● The Prime Minister of India on the 22nd of December 1953 in the Parliament made a
Statement regarding a Commission to be appointed in order to inspect “objectively
and dispassionately” the issue of Indian States’ reorganization “so that the welfare
of the people of each constituent unit as well as the nation as a whole is
promoted”.

● The Commission was appointed in the Ministry of Home Affairs under a resolution by
the Union Government on 29th December, 1953.

● After the Commission in due course submitted its report, a Bill entitled “The States
Reorganisation Bill'' on 18th April 1956 was introduced first in the Lok Sabha in
which Clauses 8, 9 and 10 were regarding a proposal which focused on the formation
of separate three units, i.e., Union Territory of Bombay, as well as the State of
Maharashtra together with Marathawada and Vidharadha. The 3rd unit was the States
of Gujrat, Saurashtra, and Cutch.

● On the recommendation given by the President of India, the States Reorganisation Bill,
as per the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution, was introduced to the Lok Sabha,
which was further referred to a Joint Select Committee, which was composed of both
the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.

● The Joint Select Committee, on its report dated 16th July, 1956, amended some clauses
of the Bill, which was passed by both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

● The President gave its assent to the Bill, due to which it converted into the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956, on 31st August 1956.

● Sec 8(1) of the impugned Act created a composite State of Bombay, which was not
proposed originally in the Bill. The original Bill proposed the constitution of 3
different units.
 ● The new State of Bombay came into existence, as per the Act, from 1st November
1956.

● On 12th September, 1956, a petition was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the
Constitution in the Bombay High Court in which he contended that the creation of the
new State of Bombay as a single unit instead of separate three units violated Article 3
of the Constitution since the Bombay Legislature was deprived of an opportunity to
express its opinion on the creation of the new State of Bombay.

The appellant contended that Section 8, along with the other consequential sections of the
impugned Act, were null and void and pleaded for a writ which would direct the Government of
the State of Bombay as well as the Union not to implement and enforce the said provisions of the
impugned Act.

● The High Court of Bombay heard the writ petition on 14th September, 1956 and found
that Article 3 of the Constitution was not infringed, due to which the petition was
dismissed.

● Further, the appellant obtained the certificate under Article 132(1) of the Constitution,
on the strength of which he filed an appeal in the Supreme Court on 18th October
1956.

Issues Involved:

● Whether Article 3 of the Constitution, amended by the Constitution (Fifth Amendment)

Act, 1955, is violated due to the impugned Act?

HELD
the proviso to art. 3 lays down two conditions, and under the second condition stated, the
president has to refer to the state legislature for its opinion is the proposal contained in the bill.
On a true construction, the proviso does not contemplate that if parliament subsequently modifies
that proposal, there must be a fresh bill or a fresh reference to the state legislature. The word
'state' in art. 3 of the constitution has obvious references to art. I and the states mentioned in the
first schedule to the constitution, and the expression 'legislature of the state' means the legislature
of such a state. There are, therefore, no reasons for the application of any special doctrine of
democratic theory or practice prevalent in other countries in interpreting those words, nor any
justification for giving an extended meaning to the word 'state' in determining the true scope and
effect of the proviso. 77 606 the requirements of art. Iv, s. 3 of the American constitution
materially differs from the second provision to art. 3 of the Indian constitution and, consequently,
decisions based on the former are not in point.

Mohd. Akbar Lone v. Union of India

Cession and acquisition of territory

In Re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves

FACTS

● A commission was established with a motive of apportionment of the State of Bihar,

which was headed by Sir Cyril Radcliffe acting as its chairperson.

● Later on, a borderline was stabilised between both the countries, i.e. India and Pakistan.
This division gave rise to some quarrels between both the nations regarding the same
location of the apportionment.

● Later, the district of Jalpaiguri was apportioned between India and Pakistan by Sir
Cyril John Radcliffe, in which some thanas (police stations) were given to Pakistan
while some remained with India.

● During this, he left out one such place which was known as Berubari Union No. 12,
which was later granted to India in the year 1947 on 14th of August. This exclusion or
space that was formed by the commission led Pakistan to claim the territory as its
own.

● During all these processes was underway, the Indian Constitution came into force on
26th of January 1950, and Article 1 of our constitution provided India shall be a
Union of States and shall be mentioned in Part A, B, and C of the First Schedule of the
 constitution. West Bengal was included in Part A of the Indian Constitution and
Berubari Union No. 12 was also included in it, as it was awarded by the Boundary
Commission to India.

● The Government of Pakistan claimed their right over the Berubari Union first time
in year 1952. However, the dispute came to a resolution in year 1958 through an
agreement which distributed the Berubari Union into two parts, out of which one part
was taken from India while; the other part was awarded to India.

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Whether there is a need for legislative action to carry out an agreement relating to the
Berubari union?

2. Whether the case where there is such a need for action, does a law of parliament
concerning Article 3 of the Constitution of India, 1950 sufficient, or is an amendment
of the constitution following Article 368 of constitution necessary?

3. Whether by Article 3 of the Constitution of India parliament is empowered to

implement the agreement relating to Berubari Union or is there a need for
amendment under Article 368 of the Constitution for such action?

RATIO DECIDENDI & DECISION:

● After listening to all the arguments made by both the parties and looking at all the facts,
the Supreme Court of India held that Article 3 needs to be amended first by the
parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution, if it decides to first pass a law for
making amendments in Article 3 as stated above.

● In such a case, the parliament would first require passing a law in concern to the
Article 368 of the Constitution, only after which it could formulate laws for the
amendment in Article 3.

● The court pronounced that though the Preamble is an integral part of the constitution
which acted as key to the drafting committee of the constitution and talks about the
country being sovereign, it cannot deprive the legislation from performing its
 functions, and neither can be utilised for declaring any part of the constitution as
equivocal. This is because the preamble does not act as an origin conferring powers
to the parliament under provisions given laid down in the Constitution of India.

● Therefore, the constitution’s preamble does not show or support any assumptions
regarding the first part of the preamble declaring serious boundaries on an essential
and crucial factor of sovereignty.

N. Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commissioner

The supreme court referred two questions to the union government viz
(i) whether Pondicherry was comprised within the territory of India, and
(ii) if not, what was the extent of the jurisdiction exercised by the union government and the
french government over the territory.

The answers given were that

(i) pondicherry was not comprised within the territory of India and
(ii) the Union government exercised full jurisdiction over pondicherry, and the French
government did not exercise any de facto jurisdiction over it. There was a treaty of cession
between France and India regarding pondicherry, but it had not been ratified as required by the
French and Indian laws. The appellant contended that the answer of the union government to the
second question established that pondicherry was part of the territory of India and that the court
was not bound by the answer to the first question.

Held that pondicherry was not comprised within the territory of India as specified in art. 1(3) of
the constitution. The answer of the union government on this question was binding on the court.
There was no conflict between the answers to the two questions. Though complete administrative
control over pondicherry had been transferred to the government of India, it could not be equated
to a transfer of territory. Unless the treaty was ratified, there could legally be no transfer of
territory. Accordingly, no appeal could be entertained by the court under art. 136 of the
constitution against the decisions of the authorities in pondicherry.
Ram Kishore Sen v. Union of India
FACTS
The writ petition was filed by ram kishore sen & Ors. The respondents were the Union of India;
the secretary of external affairs; the government of India; the state of West Bengal, along with
the collector of the district of Jalpaiguri. As a result of agreements which had taken place
between India and Pakistan and had been entered into by them in 1956, and was between the
prime minister of India and Pakistan, half of that area was known as beriberi union no.12, and an
area of chilahati village measuring 512 acres was agreed to be transferred by India to the nation
of Pakistan. The petitioners were natives of villages such as Deuniapa, chilahati(under Jalpaiguri
thana), senpara, and some places under Boda thana, but when the village under thana boda was
being transferred to Pakistan because of partition which had taken place in the year 1947, the
natives had shifted to a village named senpara and gouranga bazaar which were in berubari union
no.12. These petitioners had their lands in which they used to cultivate, ancestral property, in
those villages, and they had their homes, their own lands there, and if the part of the