9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. True scope and effect of Article 3 of the Constitution. 2. Compliance with the proviso to Article 3 regarding the formation of the composite State of Bombay. 3. Interpretation of the term "State" in Article 3. 4. Necessity of a fresh reference to the State Legislature for amendments to the Bill. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. True Scope and Effect of Article 3 of the Constitution: The primary question in the appeal was the interpretation of Article 3 of the Constitution, particularly after the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955. Article 3 empowers Parliament to form new states, alter boundaries, and change names of states. The proviso to Article 3 stipulates that no Bill affecting the area, boundaries, or name of any State shall be introduced in Parliament without the President's recommendation and without referring the Bill to the State Legislature for its views. 2. Compliance with the Proviso to Article 3: The appellant contended that the formation of the composite State of Bombay, instead of the three separate units originally proposed, contravened Article 3 because the State Legislature of Bombay had no opportunity to express its views on this modification. The Court held that the proviso to Article 3 requires the President to refer the proposal contained in the Bill to the State Legislature for its views. The Court emphasized that the proviso does not necessitate a fresh reference for every amendment to the Bill. The essential requirement is that the State Legislature should have the opportunity to express its views on the original proposal. The Court found that the Bill was introduced on the President's recommendation and was referred to the State Legislatures, fulfilling the proviso's conditions. 3. Interpretation of the Term "State" in Article 3: The appellant argued that the term "State" in Article 3 should include not just the geographical entity but also its people, implying that the State Legislature should express views on substantial amendments. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the term "State" refers to the geographical entity as specified in the First Schedule of the Constitution. The Court noted that Parliament, representing the people of India, has the exclusive power to alter state boundaries, with the State Legislature having only the right to express its views. 4. Necessity of a Fresh Reference to the State Legislature for Amendments: The appellant argued that substantial amendments to the Bill, such as the formation of the composite State of Bombay, required a fresh reference to the State Legislature. The Court disagreed, stating that the proviso to Article 3 does not require a fresh reference for every amendment. The Court emphasized that the proposal of one unit instead of three was germane to the subject matter of the original proposal and did not necessitate a fresh Bill or reference. The Court also highlighted that the validity of parliamentary proceedings cannot be questioned based on procedural irregularities, as per Article 122(1) of the Constitution. Conclusion: The Court concluded that there was no violation of Article 3 in the formation of the composite State of Bombay. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the validity of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and its provisions. The judgment clarified the interpretation of Article 3 and the conditions under the proviso, emphasizing the procedural aspects and the role of State Legislatures in expressing views on proposed changes.
|
