Author: Aneel Meghani, Law Student, Sindh Mehran Institute of Law, Jamshoro

Edited By: Aman Tyagi, Law Student, University Five Year Law College, Jaipur

1. ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India held the validity of the States Reorganisation Act 1956, which formed a composite separate State of Bombay. The appellant challenged the Act, alleging that it contravened Article 03 of the Indian Constitution, as the State Legislature had no opportunity to express its views on the formation of the separate state. The Supreme Court of India interpreted Article 03 of the Indian Constitution, that the reference of the President of India to the State Legislature is only for subsequent amendments. The composition of the State of Bombay was deemed an amendment of the original proposal, not the new proposal. The appeal was dismissed with costs and validated the States of Reorganisation Act 1956 and the formation of a completely separate composite State of Bombay as we all know the constitution of every country is considered as the backbone of all the laws. Whenever any dispute arises regarding the statutory interpretation, the judiciary always takes charge of handling the dispute.

In this case, we will study in what manner the constitutional validity of section 08 under the State Reorganisation Act was determined by the Superior Court when the matter concerned the separate State of Bombay instead of the formation of three unitary states as already proposed in the original bill before becoming the Act.

Keywords (Minimum 5): Supreme Court of India, Constitution, Composition of State of Bombay, Interpretation of Article 03, State of Reorganisation Act, 1956

1. CASE DETAILS

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case is one of the most famous cases in the history of India, in this case, the petitioner made an argument before the Supreme Court of India that the State Reorganisation Act 1956 contravened article 03 of the Constitution of India and questioned the validity of States Reorganisation Act 1956. Before passing the act, the President of India recommended the States Reorganisation Act before the Parliament and Legislatures to give their views and opinions on the matter of the formation of three units as per the original proposal:

1. The Union Territory of Bombay
2. The State of Gujrat
3. The State of Maharashtra

The new amendment related to the matter in which only one separate State of Bombay was made rather than three different unitary states and the bill was passed with the assent of the President and the President did not refer to the Parliament or Legislature for the modification.

Later, in this regard, the petitioner filed a petition before the High Court of Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and alleged that the formation of the State of Bombay contravened Article 03 of the Constitution of India instead of three separate states as proposed in the original bill. This writ petition was heard by the High Court of Bombay on September 14, 1956, and the High Court dismissed the petition and expressed that there was no violation of Article 03 of the Constitution. The appellant then obtained the certificate under article 132 (1) and filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of India on behalf of that certificate.

     2. FACTS OF THE CASE

i) Procedural Background of the Case

A bill was introduced in the Parliament on the report of the States Reorganisation Commission and as recommended by the President of India under the proviso of Article 03 of the Constitution of India

The Bill was proposed to make three unitary separate States-

• Union Territory of Bombay
• Maharashtra, including Marathawada & Vidarbha
• Gujarat, including Saurashtra & Cutch

The Bill was sent by the President in the State Legislature for their views. The bill was considered by the House of the People & Council of States and made a report. The Parliament amended the bill which came to be known as the States Reorganisation Act, of 1956. The appellant Babulal Parate filed a petition challenging the Act under Article 226 of the Constitution of India The High Court of Bombay dismissed the petition and the appellant obtained the certificate and filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court held that the Act was not against the Constitution of India and dismissed the appeal with cost

ii) Factual Background of the Case

• The Prime Minister of India in December 1953, announced the formation of a States Reorganisation Commission to examine the Reorganisation of the States and submit the report within a given time
• The Commission made a report and on the basis of that report a Bill was introduced in the Parliament in April 1956 to make three separate States/Units
• The Bill was sent to the three States Legislatures for the views as required by the article 03 of the Constitution of India
• The State Legislatures expressed their views and then the Bill was sent to the Joint Select Committee of Parliament
• The Committee of Parliament made its report and made some amendments to the Bill
• The amendment included the formation of a unitary state instead of three separate units
• The States Reorganisation Act received the assent of the President of India on 31^st August 1956
• The appellant filed a petition before the High Court of Bombay arguing that the Act contravenes the Article 03 of the Constitution
• The High Court of Bombay dismissed the petition leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court

       3. LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

The issues raised in this case:

1. Whether the formation of a composite State of Bombay as one unitary state instead of three separate states as proposed in the original bill
2. Whether the provision to Article 03 of the Constitution requires a fresh reference to the State Legislature or any modification
3. Whether the word Bill in the provision includes amendments or substantial amendments to the original proposal
4. Whether the formation of the State of Bombay was a new proposal or a modification of the originally proposed bill

     4. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

• The appellant argued that, according to article 03 of the constitution, the State does not include only the geographical entity but also people living in that region are part of the State, the Parliament should hear them and give them a chance to give their opinions on the changes to the proposal and include any amendments to the original bill.
• The term Bill should include any substantial amendment and should hear the views of State Legislatures
• The Legislature of the State of Bombay did not have the opportunity to express their views about the changes that have been made
• The formation of the State of Bombay is different from the original proposed bill.

The counsels for Respondent submitted that

• The term “State” refers to the geographical entity specified in the Constitution of India
• The term “Bill” shouldn’t be interpreted to every amendment. It emphasized that a broad interpretation of the “Bill” to include any amendment could nullify the effect of Article 122 (1)
• The Respondent Council emphasized that the formation of the State of Bombay was a valid formation. There was no need for fresh reference to the State Legislature

1. RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• The Constitution of India

1. Article 03 of the Constitution of India:

i) It empowers the Parliament to form a new State by separation of territory or uniting two or more states or part of states

ii) Increase or decrease the area of any State

iii) Alter the name or boundaries of any State

    2. Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

i) According to Article 226, every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction to any person or territory

    3. Article 132 of the Constitution of India:

i) According to this, an appeal shall lie from any judgment or decree that has been passed by the High Court to the Supreme Court of India whether in civil criminal or other proceedings

    4.Article 122(1) of the Constitution of India:

i) Article 122 (1) protects the validation of legislative proceedings and challenges

• State Reorganisation Act, 1956

1. Section 8(1) of the State Reorganisation Act:

i) Formed a new State of Bombay, comprising of specified territories

1. JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI-

There were two conditions:-

1. The key factor was on the proviso to Article 03, that if the bill is affecting the area, boundary, or name of any state, the President shall send the bill to the State Legislature for their opinions or views

2. The second condition was that the President shall send the proposal contained in the bill to the State Legislature only but not for any subsequent amendment made by the Parliament. The petitioners argued that to apply a broader interpretation of the State, they should include its people and consider any significant modification as required in the fresh bill.

As per the second condition of Article 03 of the Constitution of India, for the formation of the State of Bombay under section 8(1) of the State Reorganisation Act 1956, the President must refer the proposal from the bull to the State Legislature within the specified time for their views

• OBITER DICTA (IF ANY)-The Supreme Court of India believed that there would be potential challenges and difficulties if an interpretation applied to Article 03. It noted that such an interpretation could lead to conflict and negative views from the different State Legislatures.

1. CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

In conclusion of the Judgment, the Supreme Court of India stated that the proviso to Article 03 of the Constitution of India does not require a fresh reference to the State Legislature if the Parliament subsequently modifies the proposal. The judgment reflects the historical context of the State reorganization, provides insights into the challenges and considerations faced by the framers of the Constitution, and highlights the significance of constitutional provisions in protecting the rights and interests of the State and citizens.

The Court clarifies that the requirement of referring a proposal to the State Legislature is fulfilled when the President of India refers the proposal for the expression of its views by the State Legislatures and there is no need for fresh reference and composition of the State of Bombay was not the violation of article 03 of the constitution.

The judgment clarifies the State Reorganisation, reinforcing the federal structure, promoting state autonomy, setting a legal precedent offering historical insights, and enhancing the public awareness of constitutional principles.

1. REFERENCES
   1. Important Cases Referred
      1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1905293/
   2. Important Statutes Referred
      1. The Constitution of India
      2. State Reorganisation Act, 1956
      3. The American Constitution