D.BASU
SUDHANGSU MAZUMDAR – Appellant
Versus
C. S. JHA, COMMONWEALTH SECRETARY – Respondent
( 1 ) AS I said in my Order on the application for contempt arising out of the instant proceeding, earlier, the dispute to which the instant proceeding relates has behind it a history of constitutional importance, which must be recounted in order to appreciate the nature of the present proceeding.
( 2 ) IT is a dispute relating to the division between India and Pakistan of the Berubari Union No. 12, a group of villages lying within the territory of India, for the purpose of ceding half of it to Pakistan in pursuance of the Agreement, which was entered into between the two Governments on the 10th September, 1958. Some doubts having arisen as to whether this could be effected without a proper legislation, the President referred the question for the opinion of the Supreme Court, under Article 143 (1) of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court gave its opinion as. The Supreme Court opined that since the Agreement between the two Governments, referred to earlier, involved "a cession of a part of the territory of India in favour of Pakistan" (p. 861 ibid.), it could be done only by an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368. As a result of this decision, Parliament
Ramdayal Ghasiram Oil Mills and Partnership v. Labour Appellate Tribunal
Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer
State of Gujrat v. Vora Fiddali
State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh
K.K.Kochunni v. States of Madras and Kerala
Vajravelu v. Special Dy. Collector
Jeejeebhoy v. Asstt. Collector, Thana Prant
K.K.Kochunni v. State of Madras
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Virendra Singh v. State of U.P.
State of Rajasthan v. Shyamlal
Sri Ram Ram Narain v. State of Bombay
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.