Babulal Parate V. State of Bombay and Another

CASE BRIEF

Citations: (1960) 1 SCR 605; AIR 1960 SC 51

Case Type: Civil Appeal

Case No: 342 of 1956

Decided On: August 28, 1959

Appellant: Babulal Parate

Respondent: State of Bombay and Another

Bench: Constitutional Bench comprising of 5 judges- Chief Justice S.R. Das, Justice S.K. Das, Justice A.K. Sarkar, Justice K.N. Wanchoo and Justice M. Hidayatullah.

Statutes Referred: Constitution of India, 1950; the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Constitution of the United States, 1787.

Facts:

• The Prime Minister of India on the 22^nd 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’ reorganisation “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 29^th December, 1953.
• After the Commission in due course submitted its report, a Bill entitled “The States Reorganisation Bill” on 18^th April, 1956 was introduced first in the Lok Sabha in which Clauses 8, 9 and 10 was regarding a proposal which focused on the formation of separate 3 units, i.e., Union Territory of Bombay, as well as the State of Maharashtra together with Marathawada and Vidharadha. The 3^rd unit was the State of Gujrat as well as 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 comprised of both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
• The Joint Select Committee, on its report dated 16^th 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 31^st 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 1^st November, 1956.
• On 12^th 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 will direct the Government of the State of Bombay as well as the Union to not implement and enforce the said provisions of the impugned Act.

• The High Court of Bombay heard the writ petition on 14^th September, 1956 and found that Article 3 of the Constitution was not infringed, due to which the petition was dismissed.
• Further, the appellant obtained certificate under Article 132(1) of the Constitution, on the strength of which he filed an appeal in the Supreme Court on 18^th 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?

Contentions advanced by the Appellant:

• The 2^nd condition of the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution is not complied with.
• The word “State” used in Article 3 should be provided a greater inference to imply and comprise not only “the geographical entity” but the people as well; which is the “democratic process” integrated in Article 3.
• Representatives of people of the Bombay State, assembled in the Legislature of the State ought to have been given an “opportunity of expressing their views not merely on the proposal originally contained in the Bill, but on any substantial modification thereof”.
• The word “Bill” should be provided a comprehensive implication to comprise any substantial amendment of the proposal which is contained in the Bill concerned.
• The creation of a new State of Bombay as a single unit was so different than the originally proposed separate three units; thereby rendering it as a “new proposal altogether” due to which a new Bill as well as a new reference was indispensable.

Observations/Obiter Dicta:

• The High Court properly emphasised in its judgment the fundamental content of the 2^nd condition of the proviso to Article 3 that a reference of the proposal included in the Bill is to be given to the Legislature of the State by the President in order for it to express its opinions on the same within the time specified by the President.
• The words of the proviso are clear and stand with their bare reading meaning. The 2^nd condition implies “what it states and what has to be referred to the State Legislature is the proposal contained in the Bill;” it doesn’t have a strong effect so as to require a new reference whenever an amendment of the proposal included in the Bill is moved and accepted following the rules and procedure of the Parliament.
• It is not disputed that the States Reorganisation was introduced in the House on President’s recommendation. It is also not disputed that the proposal was referred to and views of the Legislatures of the concerned State were received.
• “It will be improper to import the question of construction doctrines of democratic theory and practice in other countries, unrelated to the tenor, scheme and words of the provisions which we have to construe”.
• No extraordinary or obscure doctrine of “democratic process” is involved in the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution.
• Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States of America is different from the proviso to Article 3 of the Indian Constitution as the former provision involves the consent of the State Legislature concerned but the latter requires a reference of the proposal included in the Bill by the President to the State Legislatures for the expression of their views.
• No difficulty in comprehending the expression “State” in Article 3 of the Indian Constitution.
• The Parliament of India is vested with the power to admit/establish new States or increase/diminish the area or alter the boundaries of an already existing State; the concerned State Legislature only have the right to express their views on such a proposal introduced in a Bill.
• An interpretation, which may invalidate the effect of Article 122, of Article 3 cannot be accepted which is based on “certain abstract and somewhat illusory ideas” characterised as a democratic process.
• The establishment of a composite new Bombay State as per Section 8 of the impugned Act was a substantial change but it wasn’t a proper amendment of the proposal originally made and it does not mean that the Legislature of the State had no opportunity to express its views regarding all the facets of the proposal in the Bill.
• From the facts of the case, it’s not true that the State Legislatures did not have an opportunity to express its views.
• If an amendment has such characteristics that it cannot be called as a real amendment and is visibly in contravention of Article 3 of the Constitution then the issue will be of the violation of a constitutional provision rather than the issue of validity of the proceedings which take place in the Parliament; which is not the situation in the present case.

Rationale:

• The substantive part of Article 3 of the Constitution gives power to the Parliament to enact a law with regard to any of the matters provided in clauses (a) to (e) which includes the power to grow or diminish an area of a State as well as to alter any State’s name.
• The proviso to Article 3 lays down 2 particular conditions to exercise this power. Firstly, a Bill shall not be introduced unless the President recommended the same and secondly, if the proposal included in the Bill affects a State’s area/name/boundaries then the same has to be referred to the affected States Legislature by the President in order for it to express its opinions on the same.
• The President specifies the time period, which may be extended, within which the Legislature of the State must express its opinion. However, if the specified period terminates and the State Legislature has failed to express its views on the same then the second condition of the proviso to Article 3 will be considered to be filled despite the failure of the State Legislature to express its views.
• The intention behind the Article 3 of the Constitution appears to be to give the State Legislatures, within the time specified, an opportunity to express its opinions; failure of which won’t invalidate the introduction of a Bill for the same. The Parliament, by following the prescribed practice and procedure as well as rules of business is free to handle the Bill in whatever manner it seems fit, but it should have the opinions of the Legislatures of the State regarding the proposals included in the Bill.
• The proviso to Article 3 does not mention that when a modification in the proposal included in the Bill by a subsequent amendment which is properly accepted in the Parliament, a fresh reference and Bill is to be introduced again; otherwise it would result in an endless process.

Judgment:

• It was held that Article 3 was not violated and the impugned Act or the sections therein are valid.
• The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Conclusion:

This case of Babulal Parate not only provides the true scope and process envisaged in Article 3 of the Constitution of India, but also proves that the Parliament has unambiguous and exclusive power to form and reorganize the States including the power to alter the boundaries in order to diminish or grow their areas. The Constitutional Bench judgment thereby comprehensively established the role of the Parliament as well as the State Legislature concerned in such matters of great importance.

Prepared by Nikita Sethi