Territory and Reorganization Part II

1
Territory and Reorganization
MODULE II PART II
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – II
PROF. SHIREEN MOTI
2
Cession and acquisition of territory
▪ In Re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, AIR 1962 SC 845.

▪ Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commissioner, Pondicherry, AIR 1963 SC 533.
▪ Ram Kishore Sen v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 644.
▪ Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 783.
▪ In Re Mangal Singh, AIR 1967 SC 944.
3
In Re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves,
AIR 1962 SC 845
Facts:
▪ In accordance with the directives issued by the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, on
September 10, 1958, the Commonwealth Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government
of India and the Foreign Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth,
Government of Pakistan, discussed 10 items of dispute between the two countries and signed a
joint note recording their agreement in respect to the said disputes and submitted it to their
respective Prime Ministers. This was done with a view to removing causes of tension and
resolving border disputes and problems relating to Indo-Pakistan Border Areas and establishing
peaceful conditions along those areas.
▪ The Prime Ministers, acting on behalf of their respective Governments, entered into an
agreement settling some of the said disputes and problems in the manner set out in the said
joint note. This agreement came to be know as the Indo-Pakistan Agreement (“Agreement”).
In Re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, 4
AIR 1962 SC 845

Facts:
▪ In the present Reference the Supreme Court was concerned with two items of the Agreement;
item 3 in paragraph 2 of the Agreement reads as follows :-
▪ “(3) Berubari Union No. 12.
This will be so divided as to give half the area to Pakistan, the other half adjacent to India being
retained by India. The Division of Berubari Union No. 12 will be horizontal, starting from the
north-east corner of Debiganj Thana. The division should be made in such a manner that the
Cooch-Behar Enclaves between Pachagar Thana of East Pakistan and Berubari Union No. 12 of
Jalpaiguri Thana of West Bengal will remain connected as at present with Indian territory and
will remain with India. The Cooch-Behar Enclaves lower down between Boda Thana of East
Pakistan and Berubari Union No. 12 will be exchanged along with the general exchange of
enclaves and will go to Pakistan.”
AIR 1962 SC 845
Facts:
▪ Similarly, item 10 of the Agreement read as follows :-
▪ “(10) Exchange of Old Cooch-Behar Enclaves in Pakistan and Pakistan Enclaves in India
without claim to compensation for extra area going to Pakistan, is agreed to.”
Issues:
▪ It appears that subsequently a doubt had arisen whether the implementation of the Agreement
relating to Berubari Union and exchange of enclaves required any legislative action either by
way of a suitable law of Parliament relatable to Article 3 of the Constitution or by way of a
suitable amendment of the Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the
Constitution or both?
6
In Re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves,
AIR 1962 SC 845
Issues:
Three questions were put before the Supreme Court:
▪ (1) Is any legislative action necessary for the implementation of the Agreement relating to
Berubari Union ?
▪ (2) If so, is a law of Parliament relatable to Article 3 of the Constitution sufficient for the
purpose or is an amendment of the Constitution in accordance with Article 368 of the
Constitution necessary, in addition or in the alternative ?
▪ (3) Is a law of Parliament relatable to Article 3 of the Constitution sufficient for
implementation of the agreement relating to Exchange of Enclaves or is an amendment of the
Constitution in accordance with Article 368 of the Constitution necessary for the purpose, in
addition or in the alternative?
AIR 1962 SC 845
Decision & reasoning:

▪ In response to issue 1, the court said that a legislative action is necessary for the implementation of
the agreement relating to the Berubari Union.
▪ In response to issue 2, the court said as follows:
a) A law of Parliament relatable to Article 3 of the Constitution would be incompetent.
b) A law of Parliament relatable to Article 368 of the Constitution is competent and necessary.
c) A law of Parliament relatable to both Articles 368 and 3 would be necessary only if Parliament
chooses first to pass a law amending Article 3; in that case Parliament may have to pass a law
on those lines under Article 368 and then follow it up with a law relatable to the
amended Article 3 to implement the agreement.
▪ In response to issue 3, the Court observed that the answers to be the same as those for (a), (b) and
(c) to Question 2.
In Re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, AIR 8
1962 SC 845

▪ The Supreme Court held that the power of the Parliament to diminish the area of a state, under
Article 3, does not cover cession of Indian territory to a foreign country.
▪ Hence, Indian territory can be ceded to a foreign state only by amending the Constitution under
Article 368.
▪ Concerning Article 1(3)(c) it was held that the article does not grant authority to India to
acquire territories. It makes a provision for the absorption and integration of foreign territories
that may be acquired by India. This provision is not supported by any expansionist political
philosophy.
▪ Regarding Article 368, it was held that the power to amend our Constitution includes the power
to amend Article 1. Thus, logically it would include the power to cede national territory in
favor of a foreign state.
In Re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, AIR 9
1962 SC 845
Court’s discussion:
▪ Further, it was held that the power to acquire foreign territory and the power to cede a part of
the national territory are essential attributes of sovereignty.
▪ The Supreme Court concluded that it would not be qualified for the Parliament to make a law
under Article 3 of our Constitution for the reason to execute the Agreement. This meant that the
law required to execute the Agreement had to be passed under Article 368 of the Constitution.
▪ The Agreement amounts to a cession of a part of the territory of India in favor of Pakistan. So,
its implementation would involve changes being made to Article 1 and the relevant part of the
First Schedule of our Constitution. Such an amendment can be made under Article 368 of our
Constitution.
AIR 1962 SC 845
▪ This was followed by an amendment of the Constitution by Parliament using the power of
Article 368. The result was that the Constitutional (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960 was enacted
to implement the agreement. The object of this amendment reads as follows:
▪ “Agreements between the Governments of India and Pakistan dated 10th September 1958,
23rd October 1959, and 11th January 1960, settled certain boundary disputes between the
Governments of India and Pakistan relating to the borders of the States of Assam, Punjab and
West Bengal, and the Union territory of Tripura.”
▪ “According to these agreements, certain territories are to be transferred to Pakistan after
demarcation. In the light of the Advisory Opinion of the Supreme Court in Special Reference
No. 1 of 1959, it is proposed to amend the First Schedule to the Constitution under a law
relatable to article 368 thereof to give effect to the transfer of theses territories.”
Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commissioner, Pondicherry, 11
AIR 1963 SC 533
Issues:
The Supreme Court referred two questions to the Union Government, which are as
follows:
▪ Whether Pondicherry was comprised within the territory of India?
▪ If not, what was the extent of the jurisdiction exercised by the Union Government and
the French Government over the territory?
▪ The French Settlement (Establishment) of Pondicherry is at present not comprised
within the territory of India as specified in clause (3) of Article 1 of the Constitution
by virtue of the Agreement dated 21st October 1954, made between the Government
of France and the Government of India or by any other agreement or arrangement.
AIR 1963 SC 533

▪ By the agreement, dated 21st October 1954, the Government of France transferred, the
administration of the territory of all the French Establishments in India, including
Pondicherry, to the Government of India, with effect from the 1st November 1954.
▪ This is expressed to be a de facto transfer and was intended to be followed up by a de
jure transfer.
▪ A treaty of cession providing for de jure transfer was signed by the Government of
France and the Government of India on the 28th May 1956 but has not been so far
ratified in accordance with the French Law as well as in accordance with the Article
31 of the Treaty.
AIR 1963 SC 533

▪ The Government of India has been administering Pondicherry under the Foreign
Jurisdiction Act, 1947, on the basis that it is outside India and does not form part of the
territory of India. Though complete administrative control over Pondicherry had been
transferred to the Government of India it could not be equated to a transfer of territory.
▪ Unless there was ratification of the Treaty there could legally be no transfer of territory.
▪ Pondicherry was not comprised within the territory of India as specified in Article 1(3) of
the Constitution. The Government of India has been exercising full jurisdiction over
Pondicherry in executive, legislative and judicial matters in accordance with the Foreign
Jurisdiction Act, 1947. In doing so it has followed the said Agreement. The Government of
France has not also exercised any executive, legislative or judicial authority over
Pondicherry since the said Agreement.
AIR 1963 SC 533

▪ The Government of India has been exercising full jurisdiction over Pondicherry in
executive, legislative and judicial matters in accordance with the Foreign Jurisdiction
Act, 1947. In doing so it has followed the said Agreement. The Government of France
has not also exercised any executive, legislative or judicial authority over Pondicherry
since the said Agreement.
AIR 1963 SC 533

▪ The jurisdiction of the Government of India over Pondicherry extends to making all
arrangements for its civil administration. The administration of the territory is being
carried on under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1947, and in accordance with the French
Establishments (Administration) Order, 1954, and other Orders made under sections
3 and 4 of that Act. The Government of India have been aiming at conducting the
administration of Pondicherry so as to conform to the pattern of administration
obtaining to in India consistent with the said Agreement. Accordingly, a large number
of Acts in force in India have already been extended to Pondicherry.
AIR 1963 SC 533
▪ The Government of India holds the view that the sole responsibility in regard to
arrangements for the defence of Pondicherry devolves on themselves.
▪ Pondicherry has no foreign relations of its own. No claims have been made by the
Government of France in this matter nor has the Government of India recognized the
existence of any such claim.
▪ The Government of France does not possess any de facto jurisdiction over Pondicherry
which would imply any diminution of the jurisdiction exercised by the Government of
India.
▪ Accordingly, no appeal could be entertained by the Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution against the decisions of the authorities in Pondicherry.
17
Ram Kishore Sen v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 644
Facts:
▪ An agreement took place between the Prime Minister of India and Pakistan to settle
some of the issues and conflicts between the two concerned nations, which was jointly
recorded by the Commonwealth Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs from the
Government of India as well as the Foreign Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
Commonwealth Relations from the Government of Pakistan.
▪ The President of India, after the above-mentioned agreement, referred some questions
to the Supreme Court of India under Article 143(1) of the Constitution with respect to
the implementation of the Agreement relating to Enclaves, for which Article 3 as well
as Article 368 of the Constitution were taken into consideration.
18
Facts:
▪ The Supreme Court rendered that a law enacted by the Parliament of India which will
be related to Articles 3 and 368 of the Constitution would be essential only if the
Parliament decides to enact a law firstly to amend Article 3 under Article 368 of the
Constitution and then enact a law related to the Article 3 (amended) to implement the
Agreement.
▪ Due to Supreme Court’s opinion, the Parliament brought the Constitution (Ninth
Amendment) Act, 1960, in which the Central Government, via a notification in the
Official Gazette, may appoint a date on which territories with reference to the “Indo-
Pakistan” Agreements will be transferred to Pakistan.
19
Facts:
▪ According to the Second Schedule of the Ninth Amendment Act, the division of
Berubari Union No. 12 was to be done horizontally from the northeast region of
Debiganj Thana by giving half the portion to the nation of Pakistan and other half
portion was to be retained by India.
▪ According to the division written in the Schedule, the Cooch Behar enclaves (between
Pachagar Thana of the nation of East Pakistan and Jalpaiguri Thana of West Bengal’s
Berubari Union No. 12) will remain in India but the Cooch Behar enclaves which is
“lower down between Boda Thana of East Pakistan and Berubari Union No. 12 will be
exchanged along with the general exchange of enclaves and will go to Pakistan.”
20
Facts:
▪ A writ petition was filed by 6 appellants against 4 respondents.
▪ The appellants comprise of the original inhabitants of villages such as Senpara,
Deuniapa, Chilahati (situated in Thana Jalpaiguri) as well as some who were originally
inhabitants of village Thana Boda, adjacent Thana Jalpaiguri, but when their village
(Thana Boda) was transferred to the nation of Pakistan due to the 1947 partition, they
shifted to the Senpara vllage and Gouranga bazar which is within Berubari Union No.
12.
21
Facts:
▪ The petitioners complained that the village of Chilhati (among others) was being
transferred to Pakistan as a result of the Agreement between India and Pakistan and the
action was illegal. The main point argued in the petition was that Chilhati was not
covered either by the Indo-Pakistan Agreement or the 9th Amendment.
▪ According to the petitioners, the Union of India was not competent to transfer Chilhati
without first amending the Constitution.
22
Issues:
▪ Whether the provisions regarding partition of Berubari Union No. 12 in the Second
Schedule of the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960 were capable of
implementation?
▪ Whether the proposed transfer of the village Chilahati to Pakistan was constitutionally
valid?
▪ Whether the present plea of the appellants can come within the ambit of international
law and whether it can be sustained via any evidence on record?
▪ Whether it was necessary to enact the Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act, 1960 with
respect to Article 3 of the Constitution?
▪ Whether the learned Judge was wrong in holding the map, Ext. A-1, on which
appellants had raised their contentions were irrelevant and not to be relied upon?
23

▪ The appeal was dismissed.
▪ It had not been proved that Ex-A1, relied on by the appellants, was generally offered
for public sale. The requirements of s. 36 of the Evidence Act were thus not satisfied
and Ex-A1 was irrelevant. Even if the said map was treated as relevant its accuracy had
not been established and no presumption as to its accuracy could be made under s. 83
of the Evidence Act, since the requirements laid down in the first part of the section
were not satisfied.
24

▪ The Court observed that when it was said that the division of Berubari Union No. 12
would be ‘horizontal’ starting from the north-east corner of Debiganj Thana, it was not
intended that it was to be made by a mathematical line in the manner suggested by the
appellants. The provision did not refer to any line as such, it broadly indicated to the
point from which the division was to take place – east to west. Also, in making such a
division what had to be borne in mind is that the Union in question had to be divided in
half and half.
▪ There is no doubt that if a small portion of land admeasuring about 512 acres which is
being transferred to Pakistan is a part of Chilahati situated within the jurisdiction of
Debiganj Thana, there can be no valid objection to the proposed transfer.
25

▪ It is common ground that the village of Chilahati in the Debiganj Thana has been
allotted to Pakistan; and it appears that through inadvertence, a part of it was not
delivered to Pakistan on the occasion of the partition which followed the Radcliffe
Award.
▪ It is not surprising that in dividing territories under the Radcliffe Award, such a mistake
should have occurred; but it is plain that what the respondents now propose to do is to
transfer to Pakistan the area in question which really belongs to her.
▪ The clause ‘as if’ in Entry 13 of the First Schedule of the Constitution was not intended
to take in cases of territories which were administered with the full knowledge that they
did not belong to West Bengal and had to be transferred to Pakistan in due course.
26

▪ The said clause is clearly and specifically intended to refer to territories which merged
with the adjoining States at the crucial time, and so, it cannot include a part of Chilahati
that was administered by West Bengal under the given circumstances. There can be no
question about the constitutional validity of the proposed transfer of this area to
Pakistan.
▪ No plea for adverse possession was raised in the writ petition filed by the appellants.
Besides, it is plain that neither the Union of India, nor the State of West Bengal which
are impleaded to the present proceedings make such a claim.
Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, 27
AIR 1967 SC 783
Facts:
▪ With the enactment of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, and the lapse of Paramountcy
of the Crown the State of Kutch merged with the Dominion of India.
▪ The territory was constituted into a Chief Commissioner's Province and under the
Constitution the territory became a Part C State.
▪ Its extent was determined by Part C to Schedule I of the Constitution as "territories which
by virtue of an order made under s. 290A of the Government of India Act, 1935, were
immediately before the commencement of the Constitution being administered as if they
were a Chief Commissioner Province, of the same name".
▪ Kutch was incorporated in the State of Bombay by the States Reorganisation Act, 1956
and was included in the new State of Gujarat by the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960.
AIR 1967 SC 783
Facts:
▪ The Great Rann of Kutch lies between the mainland of Sind (now part of Pakistan) and
the mainland of Kutch, For four months in the year it is mostly under water, for the rest
of the year it is marshy land.
▪ From the very nature of the terrain the boundaries of the Rann are shifting, its extent
depending on the violence of natural elements in different years.
▪ The northern boundary of the Rann, therefore, always remained ill defined.
▪ From 1948 onwards diplomatic notes were exchanged between the Governments of
India and Pakistan concerning the boundary between the two countries in the Gujarat-
West Pakistan Sector.
▪ The dispute led to great tension between the two countries resulting in armed conflict
in 1965.
AIR 1967 SC 783
Facts:
▪ In June 1965 the Governments of India and Pakistan concluded an agreement for setting
up a Tribunal “for determination and demarcation of the border” in the area of Gujarat-
West Pakistan.
▪ Both Governments undertook to implement the findings of the Tribunal.
▪ The award to be made by the Tribunal was, it was agreed, to operate as a self executing
arrangement; it, was not only to declare the boundary but also to provide for fixing its
location on site.
▪ By an award dated February 19, 1968, the Tribunal accepted the claim of Pakistan to
three sectors and two inlets in the Rann of Kutch.
AIR 1967 SC 783
Facts:
▪ The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 praying for the issuance of a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order alleging infringement of fundamental
rights Articles 19(1)(d)(e) and (f) of the Constitution to restrain the Government of India
from ceding to Pakistan the territories in the Rann of Kutch awarded by the Tribunal.
Question before the Court:
▪ The only question raised in these matters is how is the award by the Tribunal to be
implemented?
AIR 1967 SC 783
Contentions of the Petitioner:

▪ The petitioners contended that the territories in the Rann of Kutch were part of India and
had always been so from the establishment of the two Dominions, that India had
exercised effective administrative control over them and-that giving up a claim to those
territories involved cession of Indian territory which could only be affected by an
amendment of the First Schedule to the Constitution.
Contentions of the Respondent:
▪ The Union of India, on the other hand, contended that no cession of territory was
involved since the dispute concerned the settlement of boundary which was uncertain,
that the award itself was the operative treaty and after demarcation of boundary it was
only necessary to exchange letters recognizing the established border.
AIR 1967 SC 783
Decision & Reasoning:

▪ The Award does not purport to nor does it operate as giving rise to an obligation to
cede Indian territory and therefore no constitutional amendment is necessary.
▪ The decision to implement the Award by exchange of letters, treating the award as an
operative treaty after the boundary has been marked, is within the competence of the
executive wing of the Government. The Award has been accepted by the Government of
India and therefore it is binding.
▪ An examination of International Arbitration Awards only reveals that generally an
Award is not accepted when the terms of submission are departed from or there are fatal
omissions, contradictions obscurities or the arbitrators substantially exceeded their
jurisdiction.
AIR 1967 SC 783

▪ None of these factors apply to the award given by the Tribunal. The petitioners have
rightly refrained from challenging the binding nature of the Award. The Award has been
accepted by the Government of India and therefore it is binding.
▪ An examination of International Arbitration Awards only reveals that generally an
Award is not accepted when the terms of submission are departed from or there are fatal
omissions, contradictions obscurities or the arbitrators substantially exceeded their
jurisdiction.
▪ None of these factors apply to the award given by the Tribunal. The petitioners have
rightly refrained from challenging the binding nature of the Award.
AIR 1967 SC 783

▪ When a treaty or an Award after arbitration comes into existence it has to be
implemented and this can only be if all the three branches of Government, i.e., the
legislature the executive and the judiciary, or any of them, possessing the power to
implement it.
▪ The practice of nations is different in the matter of: implementation of treaties and
arbitration awards in boundary disputes in particular. The question is one of domestic as
well as International Law.
▪ In India we can only go by inferences from our Constitution, the circumstances and
precedents. The legislative entries which enable the Parliament to enact laws in respect
of treaties are to be read with Article 253. The Article adds nothing to the legislative
entries but confers exclusive power of law-making upon the Parliament.
AIR 1967 SC 783

▪ The precedents of this Court are clear only on one point, namely, that no cession of
Indian territory can take place without a constitutional amendment.
▪ The second Berubari case concerned territory which was de facto under administration
by India but being de jure that of Pakistan, transfer of that territory which was not a part
of Indian territory was held not to require a constitutional amendment. Neither case
dealt with a boundary dispute.
AIR 1967 SC 783

▪ The question on which side a disputed border falls is one of authority. Who in the State can be
said to possess Plenum dominium depends upon the Constitution and the nature of adjustment.
As to the necessity of it courts must assume it as a matter of law. It is scarcely to be thought that
the validity of the action can ever depend upon the judgment of a court.
▪ The petitioners have not established that the territories ceded to Pakistan were a part of
Kutch.
▪ The phrase “as if they were a Chief Commissioner's Province of the same name” in Part C, to
first Schedule of the Constitution must be understood as was laid down by this Court in the
second Berubari case where the word “as if” was held to refer to “territories which originally
did not belong to West Bengal but which became a part of West Bengal by reason of merger
agreements.” The history of Kutch does not establish that the territories were a part of Kutch.
AIR 1967 SC 783
Decision & Reasoning

▪ The White Paper on Indian States only gives the area of Kutch not the boundaries.
▪ The Kutch merger agreement gives no clue to the boundaries and also leaves the
matter at large. Also, in the States Merger (Chief Commissioner's) Province Order,
1949, in the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and in the Bombay Reorganisation Act,
1960 the boundaries of Kutch were not mentioned.
▪ Therefore, none of these documents are of any help in determining boundaries or to
establish that the disputed area were definitely a part of India.
▪ The assertion of the Prime Minister of India in 1956 and later in 1965 that the area
belonged to India was only a statement and cannot be held to be of an evidentiary
character.
AIR 1967 SC 783
▪ The claim map and other evidence produced by India before the Tribunal show that
there has never been a clear demarcation of boundary in this area.
▪ There is no evidence of administration of the disputed area by India.
▪ The existence of Watch and Ward Officers or the establishment of a polling booth for
them at election time cannot connote administration such as would make
‘Pondicherry’ a part of the territory of India.
▪ The diplomatic notes began soon after the establishment of the two dominions and the
occupation may have meant de facto control but there was no proof of de jure
occupation or any other administration.
▪ Sovereignty over an area is a matter of inference and unless real existence of
sovereignty over this area is proved India cannot be in de jure occupation.
39
In Re Mangal Singh, AIR 1967 SC 944
Facts:
▪ The Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 (the “Act”) carved out of the old State of
Punjab two new States, Punjab and Haryana, transferred some areas to Himachal
Pradesh and constituted Chandigarh, a territory of the old State, into a Union Territory.
▪ The Old State had a bicameral legislature and so was the case with the new State of
Punjab as well; but Haryana had a unicameral legislature.
▪ Under the Act, the Legislative Assembly of Haryana was to consist of only 54
members.
▪ Members of the Legislative Council of the Old State belonging to Haryana area were
unseated, while those residing in the Union Territory of Chandigarh continued to be
members of the Legislative Council of the Old State.
40
Facts:
▪ Therefore, members of the Legislative Council of the Old State belonging to Haryana
challenged the legality of the Act in a writ petition, which the High Court rejected.
Contentions of the appellants:

In appeal, the Supreme Court, the appellants contented as follows:
▪ Constitution of the Legislative Assembly of Haryana by Section 13(1) of the Act which
departs from the minimum membership prescribed to the State Legislative Assembly
violates the mandatory provisions of the Article 170(1) of the Constitution; and
▪ by enacting that the members of the Legislative Council of the old State residing in 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 was denial of equality.
41

▪ The appeal was dismissed.
▪ The power to reduce the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly below
the minimum prescribed by Article 170(1) is implicit in the authority to make laws
under Article 4 of the Constitution.
▪ Such a provision is undoubtedly an amendment of the Constitution, but by the express
provision provided in Article 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 Article 368.
42

▪ The Constitution also contemplates by Article 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.
▪ The Parliament could not make adjustments as would strictly confirm to the
requirements of Article 171(3) without fresh elections. It, therefore, adopted an ad hoc
test and unseated members of the Council who were residents of the Haryana area.
43

▪ 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
States and no personal rights 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 were violated.

Territory and Reorganization Part II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Territory and Reorganization Part II

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Territory and Reorganization Part II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Territory and Reorganization

▪ In Re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, AIR 1962 SC 845.

AIR 1962 SC 845

AIR 1962 SC 845

Decision & reasoning:

Decision & reasoning:

Decision & reasoning:

Decision & reasoning:

Decision & reasoning:

Decision & reasoning:

Decision & reasoning:

Decision & reasoning:

Decision & reasoning:

Decision & reasoning:

Contentions of the Petitioner:

Decision & Reasoning:

Decision & Reasoning:

Decision & Reasoning:

Decision & Reasoning:

Decision & Reasoning:

Decision & Reasoning

Contentions of the appellants:

Decision & Reasoning:

Decision & Reasoning:

Decision & Reasoning:

You might also like