Babulal Parate vs The State of Bombay and Another on (28 August 1959)

Author: Pooja, Rayat College Of Law, Railmajra (Affiliated to Panjab University, Chandigarh)

ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

It is a fact that the Constitution is the foundation of all of the laws in our country (India)[1]. However, we observed or heard the contentions that ‘Y’ Provision of ‘X’ Act is against our Constitution and made before the Apex Court. Then the question arises about the importance of our constitution and where the Doctrine of separation of Power come forth as it divided the powers between Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary and the term used ‘Three organs of the state machinery’. No doubt, all work together but in their sphere of Jurisdiction in order to maintain effectiveness and efficiency in the making of Law, Implementation of Law and Order and for the Administration of Justice.

When disputes concerning statutory interpretation or the constitutionality of legal provisions surface, the judiciary takes center stage. Through petitions filed before the Supreme Court, it plays a critical role in deciphering the intent and objective of statutes, recognizing that these can vary depending on the specific case[2] (e.g., State of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee, AIR 1953 SC 166)[3].

In this present case, we will further know in what manner the constitutional validity of Section 8 under the State Reorganisation Act(1956) was determined by the Apex Court, when matter concern to the composition of the State of Bombay instead of formation of three state units as an original proposal in the bill before becoming Act and Legislature Process was in dispute.

Keywords (Minimum 5): Supreme law of land,Role of Legislative Process, Power of Parliament, President Recommendation, Amendment of Original Proposal, Composition of Bombay State, Interpretation of Article 3.

CASE DETAILS

*Judgement Case Title*	Babulal Parate vs The State of Bombay and Another
*Case Number*	Civil Appeal No. 342 of 1956
*Judgement Date*	28/08/1959
*Court*	Supreme Court of India
*Quorum*	S.K. Das,A.K. Sarkar,K.N. Wanchoo,M. Hidayatullah
*Author*	S.K. Das
*Citation*	1960 AIR 51, 1960 SCR (1) 605, AIR 1960 SUPREME COURT 51, 1960 (1) SCR 605, 1960 SCJ 107, 1959 MPLJ 1037, 1959 62 BOM LR 58
*Legal Provisions Involved*	Article 3 of the Indian Constitution[4] Article 226 of the Indian Constitution[5] Article 132 of the Indian Constitution[6] Article 122(1) of the Constitution[7] States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (XXXVII Of 1956), s. 8(1)[8]

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case talks about the very concerning topic and the primary issue, as per case the Petitioner made the argument that one of the proviso of the States Reorganisation Act(1956) has been contravening the Article 3 of the Indian Constitution and question the Constitutional validity of the States Reorganisation Act(1956) .With due procedure before the act passed, the President recommended States Reorganisation Bill before the parliament and state legislature to give opportunity to express their thoughts and opinions in the matter of the formation of three units as per original proposal: the Union territory of Bombay, the State of Gujrat and the State of the Maharashtra. Subsequently, the new amendment made in relation to the matter in which the composition of the State of Bombay rather than the formation of 3 units out of Part A state decided afterwards bill passed with the Presidents assent. This time, the President did not refer this proposal in relation to such modification before the State legislature[9]. So, we are dealing in this Case analysis: Why the appeal of this matter put forth under Article 226 before the High Court and dismissed? What’s the judgement made by the Supreme Court on the invocation of its jurisdiction under Article 132 of the Indian constitution?[10]

FACTS OF THE CASE[11]

The factual matrix, in this case, is that the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Union Government established the Commission on 29 Dec 1953 under a resolution. The Commission submitted its report on 18 April 1956. This report recommended establishing three separate units in the region: the Union Territory of Bombay, the State of Maharashtra, and the State of Gujrat. Based on the recommendation of the Commission, the States Reorganisation Bill (1956) was introduced in the Lok Sabha for the same proposal as per its report.

Thereafter, This Bill was referred to a Joint Select Committee of Parliament, which submitted its report on 16 July 1956 after reviewing the proposal and after certain amendments were made to the clauses of the Bill. On 31 August 1956, Parliament approved the Bill.

Eventually, it received assent from the President and became the States Reorganization Act (1956). Section 8(1) of this Act established a composite State of Bombay instead of the three units of the state as per the original proposal.

On 12 September 1956, Babulal Parate filed a petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 8 (1) of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 because the Act passed in contravention of the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution since the Legislature of Bombay had not been allowed to express its views on the formation of the composite State of Bombay, which amounts to a violation of Article 3.

The High Court examined the interpretation of Article 3 of the Constitution with the proviso and held that there was no violation of Article 3. The Court dismissed the petition on 14 September 1956.

The appellant then obtained the necessary certificate under Article 132(1) of the Constitution and filed his appeal in this present Apex Court on 18 October 1956, on the strength of that certificate. It led to an appeal at the Supreme Court of India, arguing the composite State of Bombay contravened Article 3 as amended by the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the formation of a composite State of Bombay, as one unit instead of the three separate units originally proposed in the Bill, contravened Article 3 of the Constitution, specifically with regard to the requirement for the State Legislature of Bombay to express its views?
- Whether the interpretation of the proviso to Article 3, considering the conditions laid down, warranted a new reference to the State Legislature for substantial modifications or if subsequent amendments could be considered without a fresh reference?

PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
- The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant contended that as per the proviso of Article 3, the term “State” includes not only the geographical entity but also the people living in that region. They emphasized a democratic process where the representatives of the people in the State Legislature should have had the opportunity to express views on significant changes to the proposal and include any amendments to the original proposal. The term “Bill” should include any substantial amendment to the proposal and should also be referred back to the State Legislature for their views. Therefore, these two terms “state and bill” should be interpreted broadly. Art. IV, Section 3 of the American Constitution says inter-alia that “no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States or parts of States without the consent of the Legislatures of the State concerned as well as of the Congress”[12]. States Reorganisation Act, 1956, specifically Section 8(1), which formed the new State of Bombay by amalgamating territories from various existing states, was passed in contravention of the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution. The contention was that the Act had not complied with Article 3, which requires certain proposals affecting the area, boundaries, or name of any state to be referred to the State Legislature for their views. The Legislature of the State of Bombay did not have the opportunity to express its views[13] on the formation of the composite State of Bombay as a single unit instead of the three separate units initially proposed in the Bill.
- The formation of the new composite State of Bombay, as outlined in Section 8(1) of the Act, is different from the original proposal. Thus, it should have required to present a fresh Bill and a fresh reference of the President to the State Legislature.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
- The counsels for Respondent submitted that the term “State” refers to the geographical entities specified in the Constitution and the term “Bill” should not be interpreted to include every amendment, especially if it is within the scope of the original proposal. It emphasized that a broad interpretation of the “Bill” to include any amendment could nullify the effect of Article 122(1)[14]. “States Reorganisation Act”, 1956, Section 8(1) which formed the new State of Bombay, as per the provisions of Article 3 of the Indian Constitution.
- They emphasized that the Act followed the procedure outlined in Article 3, including the referral of the proposal to the State Legislatures for their views. The Bill, which later became the “States Reorganisation Act, 1956” was introduced on the recommendation of the President, as required by Article 3. They highlighted that the President’s recommendation fulfilled the constitutional requirement. During the debates in the State Legislature, several members expressed support for a composite State of Bombay.
- Counsel contended that the formation of the composite State of Bombay under Section 8(1) of the Act was a valid amendment to the original proposal. There was no requirement for a fresh reference to the State Legislature every time there was an amendment to the proposal contained in the Bill as per Articles 3 and 122 of the constitution. However, Parliament representing the people of India as a whole, has the exclusive power to admit or establish new States, and the role of State Legislatures is limited to expressing their views on proposals.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Constitution Of India (1950)[15]

Article 3: It empowers Parliament to:

“Form a new State by separation of territory from any State, uniting two or more States or parts of States, or uniting any territory to a part of any State.
Increase the area of any State.
Diminish the area of any State.
Alter the boundaries of any State.
Alter the name of any State.”

Article 3 lays down conditions: –

No Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in Parliament except on the recommendation of the President.
Where the proposal affects the area, boundaries, or name of any State, the Bill must be referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views within a specified period.

Article 226 of the Constitution:

“Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.”

Article 132 of the Constitution:

“An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies under article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution.”

Article 122(1) of the Constitution:

“It protects the validity of legislative proceedings, and challenges based solely on procedural irregularities may be counterproductive of the Indian Constitution.”

State Reorganisation Act, 1956:

Section 8(1)

“Formed a new Part A State known as the State of Bombay, comprising specified territories. This was a modification from the original proposal of three separate units.”

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI
- After the analysis and Interpretation of Article 3 of the Indian Constitution reviewed by the apex court. The key focus was on the proviso to Article 3, that if a proposal in a Bill affects the area, boundaries, or name of any state, the President shall refer the Bill to the concerned State Legislature so that the opportunity to express their views can be given as per constitutional provision. As per Article 3, the 2nd condition requires that the President shall refer the proposal contained in the Bill to the State Legislature only, but not for any subsequent modifications or amendments made by Parliament. The objective of this proviso is to provide an opportunity for State Legislatures to express their views on the original proposal within a specified period. Failure to express views does not invalidate the introduction of the Bill. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that a broader interpretation should be given to the words “State” and “Bill”.
- The reason is the petitioner’s argument to apply a broader interpretation of “State”[16] to include its people and to consider any significant modification as requiring a fresh Bill and reference to the State Legislature Bill” to include any amendments stating that such an interpretation would nullify the effect of other constitutional provisions like 122 Article and Parliament’s procedural rules” As per the Process, the State Legislatures have the right to express views on proposals affecting their states, Parliament has the exclusive power to admit or establish new States, and State Legislature views are not binding because Parliament, representing the people of India as a whole, has the authority to make decisions on state formation, with State Legislature views serving as input rather than determinative factors[17].
- The court examined the formation of the composite State of Bombay under Section 8(1) of the “States Reorganisation Act”, 1956. The President must refer the proposal from the bill to the State Legislature within the specified time for their views, as per the second condition of Article 3 of the Indian Constitution. It is important to highlight that according to the High Court’s ruling, the President should refer the original proposal from the Bill to the State Legislature. The proviso does not specify that if the proposal in the Bill is altered through a proper amendment in Parliament, there is a requirement for a new reference to the State Legislature or a new bill introduction. However, the court determined that this modification was within the scope of an amendment and was relevant to the subject matter of the original proposal[18]. It was noted that during debates in the State Legislature, various views were expressed, including support for a composite State of Bombay, indicating that the State Legislature did have the opportunity to express its views. Hence, The Appeal was dismissed with Cost[19].

OBITER DICTA (IF ANY)
- The court believed that there would be potential challenges and difficulties, if a broader interpretation were to be applied to the proviso of Article 3. It noted that such an interpretation could lead to conflicting views from different State Legislatures, potentially creating legislative hurdles. Subsequently, the court clarified that any hypothetical amendments unrelated to the matters specified in Article 3 would not impact the validity of the proceedings in Parliament, unless they violated a specific constitutional provision.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The clarity provided by this case on the process of state reorganization[20] in India ensures that future alterations or formalities adhere to established procedures. This, in turn, strengthens confidence among citizens and stakeholders in the legal framework guiding such significant changes. Upholding Parliament’s sovereignty reinforces the federal democratic structure of India, striking a crucial balance between central authority and individual state rights, ultimately contributing to overall federal stability. The case recognizes the valuable role of state legislatures in expressing their views on proposed bills affecting their boundaries, promoting a sense of participation and representation within the legal framework. Additionally, it sets a valuable legal precedent for future cases involving similar issues, serving as a crucial resource for lawyers, lawmakers, and judges navigating complex matters of state reorganization. The case might lead to political discussions and debates on the topic of state reorganization. Political parties and leaders may consider the implications of this judgment when proposing or opposing changes to state boundaries, fostering informed discussions on the topic[21].

The judgment reflects the historical context of India’s state reorganization post-independence. It provides insights into the challenges and considerations faced by the framers of the Constitution and the subsequent legal evolution in dealing with state boundaries. While legal in nature, cases of this nature can also contribute to public awareness of constitutional principles and the importance of proper procedures in governance. It highlights the significance of constitutional provisions in safeguarding the rights and interests of states and citizens. The impact of the Babulal Parate case on society includes providing clarity on state reorganization, reinforcing the federal structure, promoting state autonomy, setting a legal precedent, stimulating political discussions, offering historical insights, and enhancing public awareness of constitutional principles.