SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(SC) 74

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th March, 1960
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.K. DAS, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Special Ref. No. 1 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, Mr. M. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India and Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India (M/s. G. N. Joshi, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, Advocates, with them), for the Union of India; Mr. S. M. Bose, Advocate-General for the State of West Bengal and Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (M/s. K. C. Mukherjee, P. K. Bose, Advocates, with them), for the State of West Bengal; Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate (Mr. Janardan Sharma, Advocate, with him), for Shri Krishna Kumar Chatterjee and Shri Ramaprasanna Roy: M/s. N. C. Chatterjee, U. M. Trivedi, D. R. Prem and Veda Vyasa, Senior Advocates, (M/s. R. Thiagarajan and Ganpat Rai, Advocates with them), for (1) the President, Bhartiya Jana Sangh, Kerala, (2) Secretary, Jana Sangh, Mandi, (3) Shri Tata Srirama Murthy, Akhil Bharatiya Jansangh, Visakhapatam, (4) Chairman, Bharatiya Jansangh, Mangalore, (5) Secretary, Bharatiya Jansangh, Sitapur, (6) Shri N. Thamban Nambiar, Bhartiya Jansangh, Thaliparambu and (7) President, Bhartiya Jansangh, Pattambi (Cochin) : Mr. C,. B. Aggarwala, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate, with him), for the Secretary, Jalpaiguri Revolutionary Socialites Party, the Secretary, All India Forward Bloc, Calcutta and Shri Nirmal Bose of Jalpaiguri.

Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, B.SEN, C.B.AGARWAL, C.K.DAFTARY, D.R.Prem, G.N.Joshi, GANPAT RAI, H.N.SANYAL, JANARDAN SHARMA, K.C.MUKHERJI, KUMAR CHATTERJI, M.C.SETALVAD, N.C.CHATTERJI, N.THAMBAN BHARTIYA JANSANGH, P.K.BOSH, R.H.Dhebar, R.THIAGARAJAN, RAMAPRASANNA ROY, S.M.BOSE, T.M.SEN, TATA SRIRAMA MURTHY, U.M.TRIVEDI, Veda Vyasa

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • constitutional law
    • treaty-making power and territorial sovereignty
      • cession of national territory to foreign states (Para 22, 23, 31, 32)
      • ascertainment versus cession of boundaries (Para 14, 19, 22)
    • parliamentary legislative competence
      • article 3 formation and alteration of states (Para 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44)
      • article 368 constitutional amendment (Para 45, 46, 48)
      • article 2 admission of new states (Para 34)
    • constitutional interpretation
      • preamble as source of power (Para 28, 29)
      • expressio unius est exclusio alterius (Para 30)
      • basic structure of the constitution (Para 32)
    • presidential reference under article 143 (Para 3)

Table of Contents

1. Does the Indo-Pakistan Agreement amount to cession of territory or merely the ascertainment of the boundary fixed by the Radcliffe Award?

The Agreement amounts to cession or alienation of a part of Indian territory, not mere ascertainment of boundary. The court found the Agreement independently decided to divide the area half and half, unrelated to any interpretation of the award. (Para 19 , 22 , 23 )

2. Can Parliament implement the Agreement by passing a law under Article 3 of the Constitution?

No. Article 3 deals with internal adjustment of territories between States and does not cover cession of national territory to a foreign State. The power to cede territory cannot be read into Art. 3(c) by implication. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 44 )

3. Is legislation under Article 368 of the Constitution necessary and competent for implementing the Agreement?

Yes. Since the Agreement involves cession of territory, implementation requires amendment of Art. 1 and the First Schedule, which can only be done under Art. 368. Parliament may alternatively amend Art. 3 first under Art. 368 and then legislate under the amended Art. 3. (Para 45 , 46 )

4. Does Article 3(c) of the Constitution cover cession of a State's territory to a foreign State?

No. Art. 3(c) refers to diminution of area where the diminished territory continues to be part of India. Cession to a foreign State is an essential attribute of sovereignty not covered by Art. 3, and cession of Union territories also requires Art. 368. (Para 41 , 42 )

5. Does the proviso to Article 3 deprive the State Legislature of opportunity to express views if the Agreement is implemented under Article 368?

The proviso to Art. 3 applies only where a Bill under Art. 3 affects State boundaries. If Art. 3 is inapplicable and Art. 368 is used, this incidental consequence cannot be avoided, though Art. 368 provides its own safeguards requiring substantial parliamentary concurrence. (Para 47 , 48 )

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: 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 of the said disputes and submitted it to their respective Prime Ministers; and 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 has been called the Indo-Pakistan Agreement and will be referred to hereafter as the agreement.

2. In the present Reference we are 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 or 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."

Similarly item 10 of the Agreement is 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."

3. It appears that subsequently a doubt has arisen whether the implementation of the Agreement relating to Berubari Union requires any legislative action either by way of a suitable law of Parliament relatable to Art. 3 of the Constitution or by way of a suitable amendment of the Constitution in accordance with the provisions of Art. 368 of the Constitution or both; and that a similar doubt has arisen about the implementation of the Agreement relating to the exchange of Enclaves; and it further appears that there is a likelihood of the constitutional validity of any action taken for the implementation of the Agreement relating to Berubari Union as well as the Agreement relating to the exchange of Enclaves being questioned in courts of law involving avoidable and protracted litigation; that is why the President thought that questions of law which have arise are of such nature and of such importance that it is expedient that the opinion of the SC of India should be obtained thereon; and so, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by cl,. (1) of Art. 143 of the Constitution he, has referred the following three questions to this Court for consideration and report there on :

(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 Art. 3 of the Constitution sufficient for the purpose or is an amendment of the Constitution in accordance with Art. 3 68 of the Constitution necessary, in addition or in the alternative?

(3) Is a law of Parliament relatable to Art. 3 of the Constitution sufficient for implementation of the agreement relating to the exchange of Enclaves or is an amendment of the Constitution in accordance with Art. 368 of the Constitution necessary for the purpose, in addition or in the alternative?

4. Before dealing with the questions thus referred to this Court it is necessary to set out briefly the historical, political





















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the provided case law snippets explicitly state that *In re: The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves* (AIR 1960 SC 845) or any other cited case has been overruled, reversed, or abrogated. While some snippets discuss the implementation or scope of the Berubari agreement, they continue to cite the case as a valid precedent.

The vast majority of the provided snippets treat *In re: The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves* (1960) as a foundational authority. It is consistently cited for its interpretation of constitutional provisions, the nature of the Preamble, the definition of "foreign State," and the scope of Article 143(1).

* **NAKULESHWAR MONDAL VS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - 1961 0 Supreme(Cal) 66, SACHINDRA MOHAN NANDY VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 1962 0 Supreme(Cal) 205, MD. SOLEMAN VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 1963 0 Supreme(Cal) 87, SK. MD. SOLEMAN VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND - 1963 0 Supreme(Cal) 86, RAM KISHORE SEN VS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - 1964 0 Supreme(Cal) 230, Edwingson Bareli VS State of Assam - 1965 0 Supreme(Gau) 6, Edwingson Bareh vs The State of Assam - 1966 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 3, S. R. Bhansali VS Union of India - 1972 0 Supreme(Raj) 126, IRON WORKS VS UNION OF INDIA - 1975 0 Supreme(Del) 9, Indira Nehru Gandhi, Raj Narain VS Raj Narain, Indira Nehru Gandhi - 1975 0 Supreme(SC) 440, President Of India VS In Re The Special Courts Bill. 1978 - 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 398, Union Of India VS Sukumar Sengupta - 1990 0 Supreme(SC) 303, Raghunathrao Ganpatrao: Srikanta Datta Narasimharaja Wodiyar VS Union Of India - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 106, S. R. Bommai VS Union Of India - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 337, VANDANA SHIVA VS UNION OF INDIA - 1994 0 Supreme(Del) 264, Ram Badan Rai VS Union Of India - 1998 8 Supreme 342, GVK Inds. Ltd. VS Income Tax Officer - 2011 2 Supreme 316, Re : {Under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India} VS . - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 671, UNION OF INDIA VS AGRICAS LLP - 2020 6 Supreme 369, Ashish Kumar Sinha VS Union of India - 2022 0 Supreme(Pat) 775, 1235](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/01500055338)):** These entries all reference the Berubari case as a valid legal authority, using it to support arguments regarding constitutional interpretation, executive power, and territorial exchange.

These cases mention various other precedents (e.g., *Union of India v. H.S.*, *Union Carbide India Ltd.*, *Bandhua Mukti Morcha*) in the context of legal discourse, but do not indicate any negative treatment or overruling of the primary case law discussed.

* **SUGANDHA ROY VS UNION OF INDIA - 1983 0 Supreme(Cal) 250:** Discusses the implementation status of the 1958 Agreement rather than the legal validity of the *Berubari* judgment itself.

* **SUNIL KUMAR MONDAL VS UNION OF INDIA - 1988 0 Supreme(Cal) 345, SUNIT KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 1988 0 Supreme(Cal) 347:** Cite *Union of India* cases regarding public interest litigation and human rights; no negative treatment indicated.

* **KISHORE CHANDRA PATEL VS STATE OF ORISSA - 1993 0 Supreme(Ori) 64, State Of W. B. VS Kesoram Industries LTD. - 2004 1 Supreme 590, State Of W. B. VS KESORAM INDUSTRIES LTD. - 2004 0 Supreme(SC) 53, Prof. I. Elangovan VS The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9 & Others - 2008 0 Supreme(Mad) 1079, RAM K. MAHBUBANI VS U. O. I. - 2008 0 Supreme(Del) 965:** These entries cite various Supreme Court decisions to support current legal arguments, treating them as established law.

None. The provided snippets consistently treat the cited cases as active and relevant legal precedents. There is no language suggesting that any of the cases listed have been rendered "bad law."

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top