( 1 ) THE petitioner is the President of the Indian Fundamental Rights Association having its Head-quarters at Secunderabad. He seeks for the declaration that the definition given under Section 18 of the Indian Penal Code is ultra vires of the Constitution.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to him, Article 1 of the Constitution defines India as the Union of States and hence it includes the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He, therefore, contends that Section 18 I. P. C. which defines India as the territory of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir, is opposed to Article 1 of the Constitution and is therefore, unconstitutional. He argues that Parliament has no power or authority to exclude the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the definition of India under Section 18 of the I. P. C. contrary to the definition of India under Article 1 which includes the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

( 3 ) ARTICLE 1 of the Constitution reads as follows:-" (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be Union of States. (2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule. (3) The territories of India shall comprise. (a) the territories of the States; (b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and (c) such other territories as may be acquired. "

( 4 ) CLAUSE (2) says that the States and the territories thereof shall be specified in the First Sch. First Sch. mentions the names of the States and the territories that each State comprises of. The State of Jammu and Kashmir takes its place as No. 15 amongst the States mentioned therein.

( 5 ) SECTION 18 of the I. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the Code) defines India as follows:- "18. "india" means the territory of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir. "

( 6 ) WE feel no doubt that the definition of India given by Section 18 of the Code is not co-extensive with the definition of India given by Article 1 of the constitution inasmuch as the definition of India given under Section 18 is not inclusive of Jammu and Kashmir. But we find ourselves unable to agree with the contention of Sri Prasad that Section 18 is unconstitutional, as the Parliament has defined India under Section 18 of the code to be consistent with the territorial extent and operation as envisaged by Section 1 of the Code.

( 7 ) SECTION 1 of the Code reads as follows:-"1. This Act shall be called the Indian Penal Code and shall extend to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. "the local extent of operation of the Code has been declared under this Section to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is, therefore, clear that the Code does not apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir though it applies to all other States in India.

( 8 ) TO be consistent with the provisions of Section 1 of the Code, Sec. 18 defines India, as stated above, which means the territories to which the Code extends. When the Parliament intends to apply the code to all the territories of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as provided by Section 1. the definition of India given under Sec. 18 should not be different from the provision of Section 1 of the Code and the Parliament, therefore. felt in its wisdom to define India under Section 18 as the territory of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir. If India is defined under Section 18 co-extensive with Article 1, as advocated by Mr. Prasad, it will be inconsistent with Section 1 of the Code. As the definition of India under Section 18 excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir is intended for the operation of the Code. Section 18 does not offend Article 1 of the Constitution. Unless Section 1 of the code is amended so as to extend the operation of the Code even to the State of Jammu and Kashmir to be consistent with the definition of India given in Article 1 of the Constitution, Section 18 of the Code should remain, as it stands.

( 9 ) EVEN the contention of Sri Prasad that the Parliament has no power or authority to define I