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

1965 Supreme(SC) 178

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Ram Kishore Sen and others, Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 436 of 1965.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. D. Mukherjee, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Arun Dutta, S. P. Mukhopadhyaya, M. Rajagopalan, D. N. Mukherjee, K. Rajendra Chaudhury and K. R. Chaudhury, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney General for India and B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. B. R. G.K. Achar, Advocate, with them), for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. C. Bose and P. K. Bose, Advocates, with him), for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

Advocates:
A.D.MUKHERJI, ARUN DUTTA, B.R.G.K.Achar, B.SEN, C.K.DAFTARY, D.N.MUKHERJI, K.R.CHAUDHARY, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, M.RAJAGOPAL, P.K.BOSH, S.C.BOSE, S.P.MUKHOPADHYAYA

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I.: The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed by the six appellants who reside within the limits of Thana Jalpaiguri in the district of Jalpaiguri. To their petition, they had impleaded as opponents the four respondents, the Union of India, the Secretary of External Affairs, Government of India, the State of West Bengal, and the Collector of Jalpaiguri. The substance of the prayer made by the appellants in their writ petition was that the respondents were attempting or taking steps to transfer a portion of Berubari Union No. 12 and the village of Chilahati to Pakistan and they urged that the said attempted transfer was illegal. That is why the writ petition prayed that appropriate writs or directions should be issued restraining the respondents from taking any action in pursuance of their intention to make the said transfer. Appellants 1 and 2 are the original inhabitants of villages Senpara and Deuniapara respectively which are within the limits of Berubari Union No. 12. They own ancestral homes and cultivated lands in the said villages and they live in the homesteads. Appellants Nos. 3 and 4 originally resided in villages in Thana Boda adjoining Thana Jalpaiguri; but when Thana Boda was transferred to Pakistan as a result of the partition in 1947, they came over to the villages of Senpara and Gouranga bazar respectively within the limits of Berubari Union No. 12; since then, they have acquired lands there and built their homesteads in which they live. Appellants Nos. 5 and 6 are the inhabitants of village Chilahati, and according to them, this village is situated in Thana Jalpaiguri. In this village, these two appellants have their ancestral homes and cultivated lands.

2. It is a matter of common knowledge that on September 10, 1956, an agreement was reached between the Prime Ministers of India, and Pakistan with a view to settle some of the disputes and problems pending between the two countries. This agreement was set out in the note jointly recorded by the Commonwealth Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, and the Foreign Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations, Government of Pakistan. After this agreement was entered into, the President of India referred three questions to this Court for consideration and report thereon, under Art. 143 (1) of the Constitution, because he took the view that the said questions had arisen and were of such nature and of such importance that it was expedient that the opinion of the SC of India should be obtained thereon. (Spl. Ref. No. 1 of 1959, In re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, (1960) 3 SCR 250 at pp 256, 295-96. These three questions were thus formulated :-

"(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 ?

On the above Reference, this Court endered the following answers:-

Q. (1). Yes.

Q. (2) (a) A law of Parliament relatable to Art. 3 of the Constitution would be incompetent ;

(b) A law of Parliament relatable to Art. 368 of the Constitution is competent and necessary;

(c) A law of Parliament relatable to both Art. 368 and Art. 3 would be necessary only if Parliament chooses first to pass a law amending Art. 3 as indicated above; in that case, Parliament may have to pass a law on those lines under Art. 368 and then follow it up with a law relatable to the amended Art. 3 to implement the Agreement.

Q.





































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