The President's Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution, which suspended the operation of the proviso to Article 3, was valid. The Shah Commission Report had no force proprio vigore and could not be enforced through the court.

Headnote:
PUNJAB REORGANIZATION ACT - VALIDITY - SECTIONS 4, 7(B)(II), 78, 79, 80 - CHALLENGED - PROVISO TO ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION - COMPLIANCE - PRESIDENT'S PROCLAMATION UNDER ARTICLE 356 - SUSPENSION OF PROVISIONS - EFFECT - SHAH COMMISSION REPORT - ENFORCEABILITY.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged the validity of Sections 4, 7(b)(ii), 78, 79, and 80 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, arguing that the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution was not complied with. The petitioner also sought to enforce the Shah Commission Report through the court.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the President's Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution, which suspended the operation of the proviso to Article 3, was valid. The court also held that the Shah Commission Report had no force proprio vigore and could not be enforced through the court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, was valid in light of the non-compliance with the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the Shah Commission Report was enforceable through the court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the President's Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution, which suspended the operation of the proviso to Article 3, was valid. The court reasoned that the power conferred by Article 356(1)(a) and (b) to declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of the Parliament included the power to suspend the proviso to Article 3. The court also held that the expression "incidental and consequential" in Article 356(1)(c) could be read as "incidental or consequential" to suit the context and that the dispensing with the need to consult the views of the concerned State Legislature was a direct consequence of the Legislature being unable to meet for any purpose whatever during the period when the Governor's power to summon the Legislature was itself suspended. 2. The court held that the Shah Commission Report had no force proprio vigore and could not be enforced through the court. The court reasoned that the Commission was appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, which provided that the Commission's report had no force proprio vigore. The court also held that the Resolution of the Government of India appointing the Commission made it clear that the Commission was only asked to make recommendations, which were made by that commission.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and the application to add the States of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh as respondents.

H. B. KHANNA

( 1 ) THE petitioner, a resident of Bhiwani, Hissar District in the State of Haryana, has sought the following reliefs:

1. That Section 4 and sub-section (b) (ii) of Section 7 and Sections 78, 79 and 80 of the Punjab Reorganization Act 1966 bo declared as ultra vires and void.

( 2 ) THAT a suitable writ, order or direction may be issued to implement the Shah Commission Report in toto and that Chandigarh Capital Project as also Lalroo, Darabassi, Pathankot and areas of Fazilka and Malaut be declared as included in the territories of the Haryana State; and

( 3 ) THAT a suitable writ be issued ousting the authority of the Central Government from the control and management of the Bhakra Nangal complex and to vest the same in the State of Haryana in order that people of Haryana may have full share in the water of Satluj, Beas and Ravi rivers.

1. The Union of India and the State of Punjab, but not the State of Haryana, have filed returns contesting this petition. The two questions argued before us relate to (1) the validity of the relevant sections of the Punjab Reorganisation Act and (2) the enforceability by this Court of the Shah Commission Report.

( 4 ) SO far as the first contention is concerned the validity of the Punjab Reorganisation Act (31 of 1966) was upheld by the Supreme Court in Mangal Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 944. Before the Supreme Court the said Act was challenged on the Following two grounds, both of which were repelled by the Supreme Court:

" (1) Constitution of the Legislative Assembly of Haryana by Section 13 (1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, violates the mandatory provisions of Article 170 (1) of the Constitution; and (2) By enacting that 8 members of the Legislative Council who are residents of the Union Territory of Chandigarh shall continue to sit in the Legislative Council in the new State of Punjab, and by enacting that the members elected to the Legislative Council from the Haryana area shall be unseated, there is denial of equality. "in the result the said Act was held to be intra vires and valid.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has now sought to assail the validity of the aforesaid sections of the Act on yet another ground, namely, that proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution had not been complied with. Since we are satisfied that there is no merit in this contention, we propose to discuss this contention at some length to show that it has no force despite the said decision by the Supreme Court regarding the validity of the Act being binding on all Courts within the territory of India according to Article 141 of the Constitution.

( 6 ) the relevant portions of Article 8 of the Constitution may now be read:

"3. Parliament may by law (a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State; (b) increase the area of any State; (c) diminish the area of any State; (d) alter the boundaries of any State; (e) alter the name of any State;provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired. "

( 7 ) THE argument on behalf of the petitioner based on the above said proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution, is that Act 31 of 1966 could not have been introduced in the Parliament without the President referring to the Legislature of the concerned State for expressing its views thereon. The answer to this contention by the contesting respondents is based on Article 356 of the Constitution, the relevant portion of which reads as follow

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1970 Supreme(Del) 7

High Court Of DelhiMANOHAR LAL - AppellantVersusUNION OF INDIA - RespondentCivil 1013 of 1969Decided On : 01/12/1970

The President's Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution, which suspended the operation of the proviso to Article 3, was valid. The Shah Commission Report had no force proprio vigore and could not be enforced through the court.

Cases Referred (4)

High Court Of Delhi
MANOHAR LAL - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 1013 of 1969
Decided On : 01/12/1970