Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard a civil appeal against the judgment of the Punjab High Court which had rejected a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The appellants, two individuals who were not sitting members of the old Punjab Legislative Council, filed the petition contending that the Act was illegal and ultra vires the Constitution. The old State of Punjab had a bicameral legislature with 154 members in the Legislative Assembly and 51 members in the Legislative Council. The Act, which came into force on November 1, 1966, reorganised the State by transferring certain areas to Himachal Pradesh, constituting Chandigarh as a Union Territory, and dividing the remaining territory into the new State of Punjab and the State of Haryana. Under Section 13(1) of the Act, the new Punjab Legislative Assembly consisted of 87 members and the Haryana Legislative Assembly consisted of 54 members as a temporary allocation of sitting members. Section 24 provided that the Haryana Legislative Assembly to be constituted after the appointed day would have 81 seats by direct election. The new State of Punjab continued to have a bicameral legislature, but Haryana was to have a unicameral legislature. Sections 20 and 22 dealt with the Legislative Council; 16 sitting members specified in the Seventh Schedule ceased to be members, of whom 14 belonged to the Haryana area and 2 to Himachal Pradesh Union Territory, while the remaining members, including 8 from Chandigarh, continued as members of the new Punjab Legislative Council. The appellants raised two contentions before the Supreme Court. First, that Section 13(1) violated the mandatory provisions of Article 170(1) of the Constitution, which required a State Legislative Assembly to consist of not less than sixty members. Second, that the differential treatment of Legislative Council members—unseating those from Haryana area while continuing those from Chandigarh—amounted to denial of equality. The Union of India defended the Act, arguing that Parliament had power under Articles 2, 3 and 4 to make supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions for State reorganisation, and that the classification based on residence was reasonable and did not violate equality. The Court analysed the constitutional scheme. It held that Article 4 expressly empowered Parliament to make laws for the admission, establishment or formation of new States and to make supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions, including provisions as to representation in the legislature. Such a law, even if it amended the First and Fourth Schedules or made supplemental provisions, was not deemed an amendment of the Constitution for purposes of Article 368. The Court rejected the argument that the power under Article 4 must be supplemental only to amendments of the First or Fourth Schedule, holding that it extended to setting up legislative, executive and judicial organs essential for effective State administration. However, the Court clarified that no State could be formed without effective legislative, executive and judicial organs, as that would override the constitutional scheme. Applying these principles, the Court held that the power to reduce the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly below the minimum prescribed by Article 170(1) was implicit in the authority under Article 4. The temporary allocation of 54 members to Haryana was therefore valid, and the departure from the minimum was permissible to tide over a temporary difficulty. On the second issue, the Court found no discrimination. The appellants, not being sitting members, had no personal right infringed. A resident of Haryana could not claim to sit in the Punjab Legislative Council, and allowing Chandigarh members to continue did not violate any right of Haryana residents. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was upheld.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - State Reorganisation - Parliament's Power to Make Supplemental, Incidental and Consequential Provisions - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 2, 3, 4, 170(1), 368; Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, Section 13(1) - The Act allocated fifty-four sitting members of the old Punjab Legislative Assembly to the Haryana Legislative Assembly as a temporary measure, below the minimum of sixty prescribed by Article 170(1) of the Constitution. The Court held that power to reduce the total number of members below the minimum is implicit in the authority to make laws under Article 4; such a law amends the First and Fourth Schedules or makes supplemental provisions but is expressly not deemed an amendment of the Constitution for purposes of Article 368. The Constitution contemplated that in enactment of laws for formation of new States, power to modify constitutional provisions to tide over temporary difficulty may be exercised by Parliament. Section 13(1) was therefore valid and the High Court was right (Paras 112-113). B) Constitutional Law - Equality - Legislative Council Membership - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14; Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, Sections 20, 22, Seventh Schedule - The Act unseated sixteen members specified in the Seventh Schedule, including fourteen from the Haryana area, while allowing eight members from Chandigarh Union Territory to continue in the new Punjab Legislative Council. The Court held that the appellants were not sitting members of the old Legislative Council and no personal right of the appellants was infringed by unseating those members. A resident of Haryana merely because of that character cannot claim to sit in the Punjab Legislative Council. By allowing members from Chandigarh area to continue, no right of the residents of Haryana was violated. Therefore no denial of equality was established (Paras 114-115).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 13(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, which constituted the Haryana Legislative Assembly with only 54 members, violated the mandatory minimum of 60 members under Article 170(1) of the Constitution; and whether Sections 20 and 22 of the Act, which unseated members from Haryana area while continuing members from Chandigarh Union Territory in the Punjab Legislative Council, denied equality.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Punjab High Court, holding that Section 13(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 was valid and that Sections 20 and 22 did not result in denial of equality.
Law Points
- Article 4 empowers Parliament to make supplemental
- incidental and consequential provisions for State reorganisation
- such law not deemed amendment under Article 368
- power to reduce Legislative Assembly below minimum of Article 170(1) implicit
- temporary provisions valid
- no equality violation in Legislative Council reconstitution
