Mangal Singh and Another v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 944

CARE BRIEF

Decided On: 17.11.1966

Judges : K. Subba Rao, C.J., J.C. Shah, C.A. Vaidialingam, S.M. Sikri and Vaidynathier Ramaswami, JJ.

Statues referred :

• The Constitution of India – Article 170 (1) , Article 4
• The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 – Section 13 (1), Section 20 and Section 22

Facts :

• The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 was enacted with the object of reorganising the State of Punjab, and came into force on November 1, 1966.
• The eastern hilly areas of the old State were transferred to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh; the territory known as Chandigarh in Kharar tahsil was constituted into a Union territory; and the remaining territory was divided between the new State of Punjab and the Haryana State.
• The old State of Punjab had a bi-cameral Legislature with 154 members in the Legislative Assembly and 51members in the Legislative Council.
• Under s. 13 of the Act as from November 1, 1966, the Legislative Assembly of the new State of Punjab consists of 87 members and the Haryana Legislative Assembly consists of 54 members.
• The new State of Punjab has also a bi-cameral Legislature. Out of the original membership of 51, 16 members whose names are set out in the Seventh Schedule to the Act ceased to be members of the Legislative Council, and the remaining members continued to be members of the Legislative Council of the new State of Punjab.
• Out of the 16 members who ceased to be members of the Legislative Council, 14 members, it is claimed by the appellants, belong to the Haryana area and 2 to the Himachal Pradesh Union territory.
• A writ petition was filed by the two appellants in the High Court of Punjab, challenging the Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966 . The High Court rejected the petition.

Question of law :

• The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 was challenged as “illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution” on diverse grounds.
• The Act was challenged on ground that
• out of 16 members who set out from list of members of Legislative Council (LC) of Punjab only 8 members who resides in Chandigarh allowed to sit in LC of new State of Punjab, which is denial of equality,
• and also that constitution of Legislative Assembly (LA) of Haryana under Section 13 (1) violates mandatory provisions of Article 170 (1)

Contentions by parties :

• Appellant’s contentions :
  • In Apex Court, two contentions were urged in support of the appeal :
    1. Constitution of the Legislative Assembly of Haryana by section 13(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, violates the mandatory provisions of Art.170 (1) of the Constitution; and
    2. By enacting that 8 members of the Legislative Council who are residents of the union territory of Chandigarh shall continue to sit in the Legislative Council in the new State of Punjab, and by enacting that the members elected to the Legislative Council from the Haryana area shall be unseated, there is denial of equality.
  • It was claimed by the appellants in their petition before the High Court that those 14 members of the Old Punjab Legislative Council “would cease to be members of the new Council” from November 1. 1966, whereas 8 members belonging to the newly constituted area of the Union territory of Chandigarh still continue to be members of the new Punjab Legislative Council, and that such discriminatory treatment of members from the Haryana region amounted to denial of equality
• Respondent’s contentions :
  • In the affidavit on behalf of the Union of India it was submitted that because Chandigarh is to be the capital of the existing State of Punjab and will continue to be the seat of new Government of the Punjab, the members from Chandigarh were admitted as members of the Legislative Council of the new State of Punjab, and that the provision was consequential and incidental to the main provision constituting the State of Punjab, and that in any event, the appellants were not persons aggrieved by the so-called discriminatory treatment.

Judgment :

The Apex court held that the appeal must be dismissed :

1. Power to reduce the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly below the minimum prescribed by Art.170 (1) is implicit in the authority to make laws under Art. 4 of Constitution. Such a provision is undoubtedly an amendment of the Constitution, but by the express provision provided in Art. 4(2) , no such law which amends the First and the Fourth Schedule or which makes supplemental, incidental and consequential provision is to be deemed an amendment of the Constitution for, purposes of Art. 368. The Constitution also contemplates by Art. 4 that in the enactment of laws for giving effect to the admission, establishment or formation of new States or alteration of areas and the boundaries of those States power to modify provisions of the Constitution in order to tide, over a temporary difficulty may be exercised by the Parliament.
2. Parliament could not make adjustments as would strictly conform to the requirements of Art. 171(3) without fresh elections. It, therefore, adopted an ad hoc test and unseated members of the Council who were110 residents of the Haryana area. There was, however, no discrimination in unseating members from the Haryana Area of which appellants could complain. The appellants were not the sitting members of the Legislative Council of the old State and no personal right of the appellants was infringed by unseating those members. A resident of the State of Haryana merely because of that character, cannot claim to sit in the Punjab Legislative Council. By allowing the members from the Chandigarh area to continue to remain members of the new State of Punjab no right of the residents of Haryana was violated.

Conclusion

The Court observed that Section 13 (1) is not invalid merely because it departed from minimum prescribed membership of Legislative Assembly for State. The constitution of Legislative Assembly under the same is valid. It was further stated that Chandigarh is capital of Punjab and its residence can be taken as member of LC of Punjab. It was concluded that there was no denial of equality and appeal accordingly was dismissed.