Constitutional Law

Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay

AIR 1960 SC 51

Citation: AIR 1960 SC 51
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date: 28 August 1959
Bench: Sudhi Ranjan Das C.J.; S.K. Das; A.K. Sarkar; K.N. Wanchoo; M. Hidayatullah

Facts

The Union Government appointed the States Reorganisation Commission to examine the reorganisation of Indian States.
A States Reorganisation Bill was introduced in Parliament and referred by the President to the affected State Legislatures under the proviso to Article 3.
The original proposals concerning Bombay broadly contemplated:
a Union Territory of Bombay;
a State of Maharashtra; and
a separate State of Gujarat.
The Bombay Legislature considered the Bill and communicated its views.
During the parliamentary process, the proposal was substantially altered. Parliament ultimately created a larger bilingual State of Bombay, combining territories that had earlier been proposed as separate units.
Babulal Parate challenged the resulting legislation.
He argued that the amended proposal was materially different from the Bill referred to the Bombay Legislature.
According to him, the President was constitutionally required to refer the revised proposal again to the State Legislature before Parliament could enact it.

Whether Article 3 requires every substantial parliamentary amendment to a State-reorganisation Bill to be referred afresh to the affected State Legislature.
Whether the State Legislature’s views are binding upon Parliament.
Whether Parliament may substantially alter the original reorganisation proposal after obtaining the State Legislature’s views.

Article 3 gives Parliament the power to:
form new States;
increase or diminish the area of a State;
alter State boundaries; and
alter the name of a State.
A Bill for these purposes may be introduced only on the President’s recommendation.
Where the proposal affects the area, boundaries or name of a State, the President must refer the Bill to that State Legislature for expressing its views within the specified period.
The State Legislature has a right to be consulted, but it has no right of consent or veto.
Parliament is not constitutionally bound by the State Legislature’s views.
Parliament may amend the Bill during the ordinary legislative process without requiring a fresh reference whenever the proposal changes.

The Court emphasised that India is described as a Union of States.
The power to reorganise States was deliberately entrusted to Parliament, representing the people of India as a whole.
State boundaries were therefore not constitutionally protected against alteration without the State’s consent.
The proviso to Article 3 gave the affected Legislature an opportunity to communicate its opinion.
That opportunity had been provided when the original Bill was referred to the Bombay Legislature.
Nothing in Article 3 stated that Parliament could enact only the exact proposal originally referred.
Once introduced, the Bill became subject to the ordinary parliamentary process, including:
debate;
committee consideration;
amendment; and
adoption in a different form.
Requiring every amendment to be referred back would create a repeated and potentially endless cycle of consultation.
It would also indirectly give the State Legislature a controlling role that the Constitution did not confer upon it.
The Court distinguished between:
the constitutional requirement of seeking the State’s views; and
the political desirability of further consultation.
The first was legally mandatory and had been satisfied.
The second remained a matter for Parliament and the executive, not a condition of legislative competence.
Even a substantial alteration in the proposed boundaries did not convert consultation into consent.
Parliament remained free to accept, reject or modify the views submitted by the State Legislature.

The Supreme Court upheld the States Reorganisation legislation.
Article 3 did not require the amended proposal to be referred afresh to the Bombay Legislature.
The State Legislature’s constitutional role was only to express its views.