A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
This judgment in Babulal Parate v. The State of Bombay and Another, 1960(1) SCR 605, is a pivotal constitutional law case that explored the scope and interpretation of Article 3 of the Constitution of India. The dispute arose after the passage of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which restructured Indian states primarily on linguistic lines. The original proposal in the Bill suggested the formation of three separate administrative units: Union Territory of Bombay, the State of Maharashtra (including Marathawada and Vidarbha), and the State of Gujarat (including Saurashtra and Kutch). However, after the Bill was introduced and referred to State Legislatures, Parliament substantially modified the Bill and enacted the formation of a composite State of Bombay, departing from the original tripartite division. The petitioner challenged the Act, asserting that such a substantial modification required a fresh reference to the State Legislature, per Article 3’s proviso. However, the Supreme Court rejected this view, ruling that the proviso to Article 3 requires the President to refer only the proposal contained in the original Bill, not any subsequent amendments passed in Parliament. The Court clarified that no fresh reference is mandated even for substantial modifications, provided they remain germane to the original subject matter. This judgment upheld Parliament’s exclusive authority under Article 3 to reorganize states, affirming that state legislatures have only an advisory role, not a veto. The Court also ruled that procedural irregularities in Parliament cannot be judicially reviewed under Article 122(1), thereby closing the door on similar future challenges.
Keywords: Article 3, States Reorganisation Act 1956, Constitutional Law, State Legislature Reference, Indian Federalism, Amendment of Bill, Democratic Process, Article 122, Composite State of Bombay.
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title: Babulal Parate v. The State of Bombay and Another
ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 342 of 1956
iii) Judgement Date: 28th August 1959
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: S. R. Das (C.J.), S. K. Das, A. K. Sarkar, K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah (JJ.)
vi) Author: Justice S. K. Das
vii) Citation: 1960(1) SCR 605
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
-
States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (Act 37 of 1956), Section 8(1)
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Federalism, Parliamentary Procedure
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
On December 22, 1953, the Prime Minister of India announced the formation of a commission to reorganize Indian states with a focus on promoting national integration and regional welfare. The States Reorganisation Commission submitted its recommendations, following which the government introduced the States Reorganisation Bill, 1956. The Bill originally proposed to create three distinct administrative units out of the then Bombay State. However, after receiving feedback from various State Legislatures and recommendations from the Joint Select Committee, the Parliament amended the Bill and enacted the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, creating a composite State of Bombay instead.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court under Article 226, arguing that the final form of the Act materially differed from the Bill referred to the State Legislature. He contended that Article 3’s proviso was violated, as it requires the President to refer the proposal to the State Legislature. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The case revolves around the legislative process leading to the enactment of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Initially, the Bill proposed three separate political units from the then Bombay State:
-
Union Territory of Bombay,
-
State of Maharashtra (including Marathawada and Vidarbha), and
-
State of Gujarat (including Saurashtra and Kutch).
This Bill was introduced with the President’s recommendation, as mandated by Article 3 of the Constitution. The President also referred it to the concerned State Legislatures for their views, satisfying the procedural requirement under the proviso to Article 3. However, Parliament amended the Bill and passed a law constituting a composite State of Bombay, instead of the three-unit structure.
Babulal Parate filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, asserting that the final Act was a substantial departure from the Bill referred to the State Legislature and that such modification necessitated a fresh reference, which had not been done. The High Court rejected the argument, and the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether Article 3’s proviso mandates a fresh reference to the State Legislature when the originally introduced Bill is substantially modified by Parliament before enactment.
ii) Whether the formation of a composite State of Bombay, as opposed to three separate units, constitutes a new proposal requiring a fresh Bill and Presidential reference.
iii) Whether Parliamentary amendments that change the core structure of a Bill can be held invalid for want of reference to State Legislatures under Article 3.
F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for the Appellant submitted that Article 3 should be interpreted in light of democratic federalism, giving meaningful weight to the views of State Legislatures. They contended that any substantial amendment to the Bill, especially those altering the structure of the state, must be referred back to the State Legislature for fresh consultation.
ii) The term “proposal contained in the Bill” must include any significant amendments introduced during Parliamentary debates. Hence, any new proposal, such as creating a composite Bombay, should have undergone a fresh Article 3 process.
iii) They further argued that failing to do so violates the constitutional guarantee provided under Article 3’s proviso and renders the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 unconstitutional to that extent.
iv) The petitioner relied on the American model of federalism and cases such as State of Louisiana v. State of Mississippi, (1905) 202 U.S. 1 and State of Washington v. State of Oregon, (1908) 211 U.S. 127, to advocate for the consent of States as a precondition.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that Article 3 only mandates referring the initial proposal contained in the Bill to the State Legislature, not any subsequent amendments. The Constitution provides no requirement for re-consultation upon every amendment.
ii) Parliament, under Article 3, holds exclusive authority to alter state boundaries or create new states. State Legislatures have only a consultative role, not a veto or approval power.
iii) The respondents further argued that Article 122(1) of the Constitution bars judicial scrutiny of Parliamentary procedure, and any modification within the scope of parliamentary rules remains protected.
iv) They also highlighted the practical implications of the appellant’s interpretation. A requirement of fresh references for each amendment would stall the legislative process, causing administrative gridlocks.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Article 3 of the Constitution of India – Empowers Parliament to alter state boundaries and names.
ii) Article 122(1) – Prohibits courts from questioning Parliamentary procedures.
iii) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 – Section 8(1) – Constituted a new composite State of Bombay.
iv) Article 117 and 118 – Provide procedural rules for Parliamentary legislation and amendments.
I) JUDGEMENT
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
i) The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Article 3 only mandates referral of the original proposal to the State Legislature. It does not require a fresh reference after Parliament modifies the proposal through lawful amendments.
ii) The formation of a composite State of Bombay, though substantial, remained germane to the subject of the Bill and was thus within Parliament’s amendment powers.
iii) Any procedural irregularity in Parliament, even if alleged, cannot be judicially reviewed under Article 122(1).
b. OBITER DICTA
i) The Court remarked that State Legislatures are not sovereign entities like the American states; hence, their consent is not constitutionally required.
ii) The Court rejected comparisons with American federalism, stating Indian constitutional design is distinctly unitary in such matters.
c. GUIDELINES
-
A reference to State Legislature under Article 3 must occur only once, at the introduction stage.
-
Subsequent amendments, however substantial, do not necessitate a fresh reference.
-
Parliamentary amendments are valid so long as they remain germane to the Bill’s subject matter.
-
Judicial review of Parliamentary procedures is barred under Article 122(1).
J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
This judgment significantly strengthened the legislative sovereignty of Parliament under Article 3. It clarified the limited role of State Legislatures in the reorganisation process and rejected a broader interpretation that could inhibit Parliamentary flexibility. It distinguished India’s constitutional setup from American federalism, reinforcing the unitary tilt in the Indian federation.
K) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
-
T. H. Vakil v. Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd., (1944) 47 Bom LR 428 [1]
-
State of Louisiana v. State of Mississippi, (1905) 202 U.S. 1 [2]
-
State of Washington v. State of Oregon, (1908) 211 U.S. 127 [3]
-
State of Texas v. George W. White, (1869) 74 U.S. 700 [4]
b. Important Statutes Referred
-
States Reorganisation Act, 1956 – Section 8(1)
