NATURE OF THE UNION.
1) Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay (1960)!
Article 3 // Role of State in Re Org [Read with Berubari Union]
-Appeal under Article 132(1) of the Constitution, studies the true scope and effect of Article 3, particularly
the proviso. Dealing with a Bill being referred to the State Legislatures.
-The new State of Bombay was to come into existence from 1st November, 1956, but on 12th September,
1956, the appellant filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Indian Constitution in the Bombay High
Court challenging S. 8 and other consequential provisions of the State Reorganisation Act as contravening
Art. 3 of the Constitution
-Said Bill contained the proposal for the formation of 3 units — (1) Union Territory of Bombay; (2) State
of MH including Marathawada and Vidharbha; and (3) State of Gujarat including Saurashtra and Cutch.
-Section 8(1) of the Act was in question that constituted 3 separate units.
-Stated that the Bill contravened Article 3 of the Constitution as the Legislature of Bombay had no
opportunity to express its viewed on the formation of such a composite State.
-Substantive part of the article gives parliament the power to make laws under clauses (a) to (e). It is
followed by a proviso which lays down conditions for exercise of power.
-PROVISO: !
the proviso lays down two conditions : one is that no Bill shall be introduced except on the
recommendation of the President, and the second condition is that where the proposal contained in the Bill
affects the areas, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has to be referred by the President to the
Legislature of the State for expressing its views thereon.
-However the response of the State legislature isn’t binding — nor is it that the failure to respond
invalidates the bill.
-The words of the proviso are clear enough and bear their ordinary plain meaning
CONTENTIONS:
1) Whether Art. 3 of the Constitution incorporates a “democratic process” such that the people’s
representatives in the State Legislature should be given the opportunity of expressing their views not
merely on the original proposal of a Bill, but also on any substantial modification thereof?
2) Whether the word “Bill” in Art. 3 should be given an extended meaning so as to include any substantial
amendment of the proposal contained in it?
3) Whether the new State of Bombay established by the Act was so completely divorced from the proposal
contained in the Bill that it was effectively a new bill and a fresh reference was necessary?!
ANALYSIS:
•All that is contemplated in Art. 3 is that the Parliament should have the views of the State Legislatures as
to the proposals contained in the Bill and then be free to deal with the Bill in any manner it thinks fit.
The proviso to Art. 3 does not say that a fresh reference to the State Legislature and a fresh bill are
required for every amendment to the original bill by Parliament. If it were so, it could result in an
interminable process.
•On Issue 1, the plain, unambiguous language of Art. 3 does not incorporate any “democratic process” as
contended by the appellant. !
The process in Art. 3 should be distinguished from the process in the USA wherein the consent of a State
Legislature is required before altering its boundaries. This difference reflects the difference in the
federal schemes of the two countries: the American States were independent and sovereign before the
formation of the federal union, whereas in India, the Centre has been vested with the exclusive power
of organizing the territories of the constituent States, with the concerned State Legislatures having only
the right to an expression of views.
•On Issue 2, the scope of the word “Bill” in Art. 3 can be determined by comparing it with Art. 117 which
uses the expression “A bill or amendments”. Thus, as Art. 3 only refers to “Bill” and not “amendments”,
the word “Bill” cannot be given an extended meaning as contended by the appellant. Secondly, Rule 80 of
the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha states that an amendment must be within
the scope of the Bill and relevant to the subject matter of the clause to which it relates. On top of this, Art.
122(1) says that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground
of any alleged irregularity of procedure. In view of these provisions, Art. 3 cannot be interpreted so as to
nullify Art. 122.
•On Issue 3, it cannot be said that the Bombay State Legislature had no opportunity to express views on the
idea of one composite unit as opposed to three units. Both these ideas, among others, were discussed and
