Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.—This special Bench was constituted on a reference made to me by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by Modi and Bhandari JJ. As the order of reference shows, the learned Judges were "not agreed on the proper interpretation to be put on Art. 295(2) of the Constitution in view of the opinions expressed" in their respective judgments. They, however, were pleased to formulate the point of reference as follows—

"Whether the expression Government of the corresponding Indian State used in Art. 295(2) of the Constitution with reference to Rajastnan properly means the Government of the United State of Rajasthan which was the only Indian State in existence at the time of the commencement of the Constitution or it also includes the Government of any of the Covenanting States which had integrated with the United State before the Constitution came into operation?"

Having had the benefit of perusing the judgments of the learned Judges making the reference and the advantage of hearing elaborate arguments of the learned Advocate General and the counsel appearing for the parties, I confess that I have felt considerable difficulty in answering the point formulated. The difficulty has been enhanced because of the narrow compass in which the matter has been laid before us, which tends to restrict unduly the scope of the enquiry. Rule 59 of the High Court Rules provides that-

"The Chief Justice may constitute a Bench or two or more Judges to decide a case or any question or questions of law formulated by a Bench hearing a case. In the latter event, the decision of such Bench on the question or questions so formulated shall be returned to the Bench hearing the case, and that Bench shall follow that decision on such question or questions, and dispose of the case after deciding the remaining questions, if any, arising therein."

2. Thus on the terms of rule 59, this Bench is called upon to determine only the question formulated by. Modi and Bhandari JJ. I do not find any other Rule in the High Court Rules, which provides specifically for cases where the Chief Justice may constitute a Bench of two or more Judges to hear and decide any difficult and important question of law arising in a case, or to constitute a Full Bench for the purpose of resolving any conflict of decisions in this Court. It appears to me, therefore, that Rule 59 cannot be exhaustive of the powers which the Chief Justice must posses in regulating the functioning of the Court to constitute appropriate Benches for the decision of such questions which may, from time to time, necessarily arise. I find that in these cases the most substantial question which arises for consideration is :

"Whether on a true interpretation of Art. 295(2) of the Constitution, the State of Rajasthan can be said to have incurred the liabilities of the other Covenanting States which went to form the United State of Rajasthan, before the Constitution came into operation ?"

This was, in my opinion, the essential question which fell to be determined in these cases ; and this Bench would have been in a happier position to determine the above question, if it had been formulated in that form. Since I have the honour of presiding myself over this Special Bench constituted for the purpose, I think that there can be no valid objection to my enlarging the scope of the enquiry in the present case, and formulating the auxiliary question in the manner that I have done, so that this Special Bench of three Judges may conveniently address itself to this important question of law bearing on the interpretation of Art. 295 of the Constitution, and the decision given by this Court may be binding as an authority in future. I notice with some satisfaction that even the question formulated under reference does envisage this aspect of the interpretation of Art 295. This is evident from the latter part of the question formulated which says "whether the Government of any of the Covenanting States which had integrat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document