Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a challenge to the constitutional validity of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Following the report of the States Reorganisation Commission and the President's recommendation under the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution, a Bill was introduced in the House of the People proposing the formation of three separate units from the existing State of Bombay—(1) Union Territory of Bombay, (2) Maharashtra including Marathwada and Vidarbha, and (3) Gujarat including Saurashtra and Cutch. The Bill was referred to the concerned State Legislatures and their views were obtained. A Joint Select Committee of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha considered the Bill and submitted a report. Thereafter, Parliament amended certain clauses and passed the Bill, which became the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Section 8(1) of that Act constituted a composite State of Bombay instead of the three separate units originally proposed. The appellant, Babulal Parate, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Bombay, contending that the Act was passed in contravention of the proviso to Article 3 because the Bombay Legislature had not been given an opportunity to express its views on the formation of the composite State. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the requirement of the proviso was satisfied by the reference of the original Bill. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered the true interpretation of the proviso to Article 3. The Court observed that the proviso lays down two conditions: first, no Bill for the purpose of forming new States, altering boundaries, etc., shall be introduced in Parliament except on the recommendation of the President; second, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any State, the President shall refer the Bill to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views. The Court held that what the President has to refer to the State Legislature is the proposal contained in the Bill as originally introduced. On a true construction, the proviso does not contemplate that if Parliament subsequently modifies that proposal, there must be a fresh reference to the State Legislature. The Court reasoned that the legislative process involves deliberation and amendment, and the Constitution does not require a second reference for every modification. Therefore, the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, was validly passed, and the formation of the composite State of Bombay did not violate Article 3. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the judgment of the High Court.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Interpretation of Article 3 Proviso - Requirement of Reference to State Legislature - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 3 proviso - The proviso to Article 3 requires that a Bill for formation of new States etc. be referred to the State Legislature for expressing its views on the proposal contained in the Bill. If Parliament subsequently modifies the proposal, a fresh reference is not mandated. Held that the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which formed a composite State of Bombay instead of three separate units as originally proposed, was not invalid for want of a second reference to the Bombay Legislature (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, was passed in contravention of Article 3 of the Constitution because the Legislature of Bombay had not been given an opportunity to express its views on the formation of the composite State of Bombay, different from the original proposal in the Bill.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the validity of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, holding that the proviso to Article 3 does not require a fresh reference to the State Legislature if Parliament modifies the original Bill.
Law Points
- Proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution requires reference of the proposal contained in the Bill to the State Legislature for its opinion
- but does not require a fresh reference if Parliament modifies the proposal subsequently.
