Back
High Court of Calcutta
Sinha, J.
Hem Chandra Sen Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Speaker of Legislative Assembly of West Bengal – Respondent
Decided On : Apr 17, 1956
ARTICLE 3 - UNION OF STATES - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE - PROCEDURE - JURISDICTION OF COURTS - LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - UNAUTHORISED EXPENDITURE.
Fact of the Case:
A resolution was proposed in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly to approve the merger of West Bengal and Bihar. The petitioners, citizens of West Bengal, challenged the resolution and the proposed merger, arguing that it violated the Constitution and their fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the resolution was not an approval under Article 3 of the Constitution, which requires the President's recommendation and the views of the State legislatures before a Bill for the union of States can be introduced in Parliament. The Court also held that the proposed merger would not create a partial union, but a complete union of the two States, and that there was no provision in the Constitution for such a union. Furthermore, the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the legislative process or to regulate the procedure of the Assembly. The Court also held that the petitioners' argument that the proposed merger violated their fundamental rights was inconsistent, as they had argued that the boundaries of Part A States were immutable and could not be changed.
Issues: 1. Whether the proposed resolution in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly to approve the merger of West Bengal and Bihar was an approval under Article 3 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the proposed merger would create a partial union or a complete union of the two States. 3. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to interfere with the legislative process or to regulate the procedure of the Assembly. 4. Whether the petitioners' argument that the proposed merger violated their fundamental rights was consistent.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the resolution was not an approval under Article 3 of the Constitution because it did not comply with the requirements of the Article, such as obtaining the President's recommendation and the views of the State legislatures. 2. The Court held that the proposed merger would create a complete union of the two States, as there was no provision in the Constitution for a partial union. 3. The Court held that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the legislative process or to regulate the procedure of the Assembly, as these matters were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislature. 4. The Court held that the petitioners' argument that the proposed merger violated their fundamental rights was inconsistent, as they had argued that the boundaries of Part A States were immutable and could not be changed.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioners' application, holding that the resolution was not an approval under Article 3 of the Constitution, that the proposed merger would create a complete union of the two States, that the Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the legislative process or to regulate the procedure of the Assembly, and that the petitioners' argument that the proposed merger violated their fundamental rights was inconsistent.
Sinha, J.
1. THERE are four petitioners in this application. One of them is a sitting member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. The other three describe themselves as 'Citizens of West Bengal', by which they undoubtedly mean Citizen of the Indian Union residing in the State of West Bengal. The Union of India and the State of West Bengal have been made party respondents (No. 4 and No. 2). The other respondents are, Dr. Bidhan Chandra Roy, the Chief Minister of West Bengal (No. 3) and the Speaker of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly (No. 1). The prayers in the petition are all embracing. They seek for the issue of a medley of high prerogative writs, including the writs of mandamus, certiorari and quowarranto. They seek to restrain the Chief Minister from functioning or drawing his salary, to injunct the Speaker from presiding over the legislature, and generally to paralyse the administration of the State interalia by stopping recourse to the consolidated fund. At the hearing, however, the scope of the application has been considerably scaled down. By and large, it may be said that the petitioners would rest content if the Chief Minister is restrained from pursuing a notice he has caused to be given in the Assembly, of moving a resolution approving of the proposal for the Union of the States of West Bengal and Bihar, and if the Union of India is restrained from bringing or initiating any Bill or Legislation in Parliament for the purposes of uniting the two States. The facts stated in the "petition relevant for the purposes of the reliefs claimed, may be briefly stated as follows:
2. ON 22-1-1947, the Indian Constituent Assembly passed a resolution, declaring its firm and solemn resolve to proclaim India as an Independent Sovereign Republic and to draw up for her future Government, a Constitution, wherein "the said territories whether with their present boundaries or with such other as may be determined by the Constituent Assembly and thereafter according to the law of the Constitution shall possess and retain the status of autonomous units, and exercise all powers and functions of Government and administration save and except such powers and functions as are vested in or assigned to the Union or as are inherited or implied in the Union or resulting therefrom and wherein all power and authority of the Sovereign Independent-India, its Constituent parts and organs of Government are derived from the people of India...." In February 1947, the British Government declared its intention of transferring power in British India to Indian hands. In June 1947, a statement was issued by His Majesty's Government on the method of transfer of power in India and inter/alia of the partition of undivided Bengal. It was, declared that the Provincial Legislative Assembly of Bengal would be asked to meet in two sections and decide whether they would form a separate sovereign State or join any one of the two Dominions of West Bengal or Pakistan or whether there should be a partition of the province. ON 20-6-1947, the members of the Bengal Le gislative Assembly met separately and decided upon the partition of Bengal. Thus came into existence the Governor's Province of West Bengal which later on became the State of West Bengal. ON 18-7-1947, the British Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act, creating the two independent Dominions of India and Pakistan. This was followed by various orders in Council, particulars whereof are stated in paragraph 9. The Constitution of India was passed on 26-11-1949. The bulk of it came into operation on 26-1-1950, which is de scribed as the "Commencement of the Constitution".
According to Article 1 of the Constitution, India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. The States and the territories thereof shall be the States and their' territories specified in Parts A, B and C of the First Schedule, annexed to the Constitution. The Provinces of West Bengal and Bihar have become the Part A States of W
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
