Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered the constitutional validity of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which reorganized the former State of Punjab by creating the new State of Haryana, transferring certain hilly areas to Himachal Pradesh, constituting Chandigarh as a Union Territory, and establishing the new State of Punjab. The old State had a bicameral legislature with 154 members in the Legislative Assembly and 51 members in the Legislative Council. Under the Act, the Haryana Legislative Assembly was initially composed of 54 sitting members from the old Punjab Assembly, though Section 24 provided for a future elected House of 81 members. The new State of Punjab retained a bicameral legislature with a Legislative Council of 40 members. The Act also provided that 16 members of the old Legislative Council, specified in the Seventh Schedule, would cease to be members, while the remaining members would continue. The appellants, who were not sitting members of the old Legislative Council, challenged the Act in the High Court of Punjab (Circuit Bench at Delhi) on the grounds that Section 13(1) violated Article 170(1) of the Constitution by constituting the Haryana Assembly with only 54 members, below the prescribed minimum of 60, and that Sections 20 and 22 discriminated by unseating members from the Haryana area while allowing members from the Chandigarh Union Territory to continue in the new Punjab Legislative Council. The High Court rejected the writ petition, and the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court framed two main issues: first, whether the temporary composition of the Haryana Legislative Assembly with 54 members violated Article 170(1); second, whether the differential treatment of Legislative Council members amounted to denial of equality. The appellants argued that Article 170(1) prescribed a mandatory minimum and that the Act could not depart from it. They also contended that unseating Haryana-area members while retaining Chandigarh members was discriminatory. The Union of India, as respondent, submitted that Parliament had power under Article 4, read with Articles 2 and 3, to make supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions for the formation of new States, and that such power included reducing the Assembly strength below the minimum to tide over temporary difficulties. The respondent also argued that the arrangement was an ad hoc measure necessitated by the inability to hold fresh elections and that the appellants had no personal right to complain. The Court analysed the constitutional scheme. It observed that Article 4(1) allows a law made under Articles 2 or 3 to contain provisions for amending the First and Fourth Schedules and also such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as Parliament may deem necessary, including provisions as to representation in the Legislature of the affected States. Article 4(2) expressly provides that no such law shall be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for purposes of Article 368. The Court held that power to reduce the total number of members of a Legislative Assembly below the minimum prescribed by Article 170(1) is implicit in the authority to make laws under Article 4. It noted that such a provision is undoubtedly an amendment of the Constitution, but by Article 4(2) it is not to be deemed an amendment under Article 368. The Court also referred to Article 371A(2)(h), which contains an express derogation from Article 170(1) for Nagaland, to illustrate that Parliament may modify constitutional provisions in special cases. It concluded that the High Court was right in holding Section 13(1) valid. On the second issue, the Court found no discrimination. It observed that Parliament could not strictly conform to Article 171(3) without fresh elections and therefore adopted an ad hoc test unseating members who were not residents of the Haryana area. The appellants were not sitting members of the Legislative Council, so no personal right of theirs was infringed. A resident of Haryana merely because of that character cannot claim to sit in the Punjab Legislative Council, and allowing Chandigarh members to continue did not violate the rights of Haryana residents. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the Act was upheld.
Headnote
A) Constitution of India - State Legislature - Minimum membership of Legislative Assembly - Constitution of India, Article 170(1); Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, Section 13(1) - The Haryana Legislative Assembly was constituted with 54 members on November 1, 1966, below the minimum of 60 required by Article 170(1), but this was a temporary provision pending fresh elections; the Supreme Court held that power to reduce the total number of members below the minimum is implicit in Article 4 of the Constitution, which allows supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions for formation of new States, and such law is not deemed an amendment under Article 368 by virtue of Article 4(2); the Court reasoned that Article 4 contemplates modification of constitutional provisions to tide over temporary difficulties, and upheld Section 13(1) as valid (Paras 111-113). B) Constitution of India - Equality before law - No discrimination in unseating Legislative Council members - Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, Sections 20 and 22 - The Act unseated 16 members of the old Punjab Legislative Council, including 14 from Haryana area, while allowing 8 members from the Chandigarh Union Territory to continue in the new Punjab Legislative Council; the Court held there was no denial of equality because the appellants were not sitting members of the Council and had no personal right infringed; a resident of Haryana cannot claim to sit in the Punjab Legislative Council, and the ad hoc arrangement was justified as Parliament could not strictly conform to Article 171(3) without fresh elections (Paras 114-115).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 13(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, by constituting the Haryana Legislative Assembly with 54 members, violated the mandatory minimum membership of 60 prescribed by Article 170(1) of the Constitution of India; and whether Sections 20 and 22 of the Act, by allowing members of the old Punjab Legislative Council residing in the Union Territory of Chandigarh to continue as members of the new Punjab Legislative Council while unseating members from the Haryana area, amounted to denial of equality.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's order. It held that Section 13(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, was valid and did not violate Article 170(1) because the power to reduce the total number of members of a Legislative Assembly below the minimum prescribed is implicit in the authority to make laws under Article 4 of the Constitution, read with Articles 2 and 3. The Court further held that there was no denial of equality in the provisions relating to the Legislative Council because the appellants had no personal right infringed, and the ad hoc arrangement was permissible to tide over temporary difficulties pending fresh elections.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Parliament's power under Article 4 to modify constitutional provisions for formation of new States
- Article 170(1) minimum membership is not absolute during reorganization
- supplemental
- incidental and consequential provisions under Article 4 include power to reduce legislative assembly below minimum
- Article 4(2) excludes such laws from being deemed amendments under Article 368
- no discrimination in unseating members from Haryana area as appellants had no personal right
- ad hoc adjustment permissible to tide over temporary difficulty
