& Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.  INSC 900 (5 May 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) NO.62 OF 2002
(Arising out of Writ Petition No.43094 of 2000) Pradeep Chaudhary & Ors.
... Appellants Versus Union of India & Anr. ... Respondents
S.B. Sinha, J.
of the provisions of Section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000
(hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for the sake of brevity) whereby the district
of Haridwar had been included in the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) is
in question in this case.
before us are residents of the district of Haridwar. They filed a writ
application before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which was marked
as Civil Writ Petition No.43094 of 2000. As several writ petitions were filed
before this Court and several other writ applications involving similar
questions were filed before different High Courts questioning similar
provisions of Bihar State Reorganization Act whereby also some districts were
included in the new State, transfer applications having been moved, the said
writ petitions were withdrawn from the respective High Courts and transferred
to this Court.
Petitioners before us
are residents of the district of Haridwar. They filed the writ applications,
inter alia, on the premise that in including the district of Haridwar in the
State of Uttaranchal, mandatory requirements envisaged under the proviso
appended to Article 3 of the Constitution of India has been violated.
said question arises in the following factual matrix involved in the matter :
were raised for formation of the State of Uttaranchal wherefor a Committee
known as Kaushik Committee was formed by the State Government for the purpose
of making recommendations as to which areas of the existing State of UP should
be included in the proposed State of Uttaranchal. Upon holding discussions with
various segments of people, recommendations were made. The district 3 of
Haridwar allegedly was not included therein. However, concededly, the President
of India by a notification proposed formation of the State of Uttranchal in the
State Reorganisation Bill, 1999. In the said Bill, the district of Haridwar was
included as one of the districts in the said proposed State. The said Bill was
sent to the Legislature of the State of UP in terms of the proviso appended to
Article 3 of the Constitution of India. Due to dissolution of 12th Lok Sabha,
however, the said Bill abated. Upon constitution of the 13th Lok Sabha, a fresh
Bill in terms of a Notification dated 4.2.2000 known as the Uttar Pradesh
Reorganisation Bill, 2000 in regard to the proposed formation of the State of
Uttranchal was sent to the State Legislature of UP for the purpose of obtaining
its views. In terms of the said notification, views were to be sent by the
State Legislature of UP by 16.3.2000.
The said notification
was in two parts.
3 of the aforementioned Bill reads as under :
"3. On and from
the appointed day, there shall be formed a new State to be known as the State
of Uttranchal comprising the following territories of the existing State of
Uttar Pradesh, namely:- (a) Pauri Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal, Uttar Kashi, Chamoli,
Dehradun, Nainital, Almora, Pitthoragarh, Udham Singh Nagar, 4 Bageshwar,
Champawat and Rudra Prayag District; and (b) The territories of Hardwar
District specified in the First Schedule of this Act."
Central Government, however, having regard to the fact that the First Schedule
appended to the said Bill did not contain any particular, with a view to
rectify the mistake, by a letter dated 10.3.2000 issued an amendment whereby
the details to be mentioned in the First Schedule thereto were specified. It reads
as under :
COMING WITHIN THE TERRITORY HARDWAR CITY"
said Bill was placed before the State Legislature of Uttar Pradesh on
30.3.2000. It came up for discussions on 6.4.2000. A resolution was adopted
that the areas of Haridwar, as specified in the First Schedule of the Bill
should be deleted and should not form part of the State of Uttaranchal, stating
[Kha] of Section 3 and its connected First Schedule should be deleted and in
its place, following Section should be placed; i.e. :- FORMATION OF UTTARANCHAL
3. On and from the
appointed day, a new State shall be formed which will be known as the State 5
of Uttaranchal; in which, the territories of Pauri Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal,
Uttar Kashi, Chamoli, Dehradun, Nainital, Almora, Pitthoragarh, Udham Singh
Nagar, Bageshwar, Champawat and Rudhra Prayag Districts of the existing State
of Uttar Pradesh will be included and thereafter, the aforesaid territories
will not form a part of the existing State of U.P."
said Bill, however, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 1.8.2000.
Section 3 of the Bill
introduced in the Lok Sabha included the District of Haridwar which reads as
"On and from the
appointed day, there shall be formed a new State to be known as the State of
Uttaranchal; comprising the following territories of the existing State of
Uttar Pradesh, namely:- [a] Pauri Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal, Uttar Kashi, Chamoli,
Dehradun, Nainital, Almora, Pithhoragarh, Udham Singh Nagar, Bageshwar, Champawat
and Rudhra Prayag and Hardwar Districts and thereupon, the said territories
shall cease to form part of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh."
been passed by the Lok Sabha, it was placed before the Rajya Sabha on
10.8.2000. However, an objection thereto was raised by one Shri R.S. Kaushik as
regards the inclusion of the District of Haridwar in the proposed State. The
said Bill, however, was passed by the Rajya Sabha also. The President of India
assented to the said Bill on 25.8.2000 6 whereupon the Act known as the Uttar
Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 came into force.
core contention of Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners, is that having regard to the proviso appended to Article 3 of
the Constitution of India, the Schedule of the Bill having included only the
city of Haridwar and not the entire District, it was impermissible for the
Parliament to make amendment thereto It was urged that as the amendment carried
out was a substantive one, it was mandatorily required to be sent to the
Legislature of Uttar Pradesh for its approval. The learned counsel would
contend that the District and City in law being two different territories, in
view of the fact that discussions had been held in the State Assembly in regard
to the City of Haridwar only, it is impermissible in law to include the
District of Haridwar in the Act as thereby the object and purpose of
introducing proviso to Article 3 has been defeated.
Amarendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of
the Union of India, on the other hand, took us through the discussions which
took place in the Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly to contend that from
a perusal thereof, it would appear that a thourough discussion had taken place
with regard to inclusion of the entire district of Haridwar by the members
3 of the Constitution of India reads, thus :
3.--Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of
existing States--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
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.
Explanation I.- In
this article, in clauses (a) to (e), "State" includes a Union
territory, but in the proviso, "State" does not include a Union
Explanation II.- The
power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new
State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to
any other State or Union territory.
bare perusal of the said provisions would clearly show that formation of a new
State by separation of territories from a State or by uniting two or more
States or parts thereof is within the legislative domain of the Parliament. The
proviso appended thereto postulates that (1) Bill may not be introduced except
on the recommendations of the President; and (ii) where the proposal contained
in the Bill affecting the areas, boundaries or name of any of the State,
reference of the Bill by the President to the Legislature of that State for
expressing its views thereon; and (3) Such views may be expressed within such
period as may be specified in the reference or within such period as the
President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.
may notice that prior to the changes introduced by Constitution (Fifth
Amendment) Act, 1955, the proviso only required the President to ascertain the
views of the Legislature of the State or States affected. The amendment,
however, widened the scope of the Bill which is to be referred by the President
to the State Legislature.
only because one or the other view had been expressed in the State Legislature,
the same would not be binding upon the Parliament even if its views were
received in time. When, however, the views of the State Legislature were not
received in time, the Parliament would be free to 9 pass the Act in terms of
the Bill or with amendment as it may deem fit and proper. A Bill has to be
introduced in the Parliament. It is the Parliament's prerogative to place the
Bill in either of the Houses, either in the same form or with amendments.
Durga Das Basu's commentary on the Constitution of India (8th Edn.) p.467, it
is stated :
"It has been
ruled by the Speaker of the House of the People that the Bill having once been
referred by the President to the State Legislatures concerned and thereafter
duly introduced in Parliament, amendments seeking to make provisions different
from those contained in the Bill as introduced and thereby affecting the area,
boundaries or names of the State are in order and are not ultra vires of the
constitution These amendments are not required to be referred again to the
State Legislature concerned nor is any fresh recommendation of the President
necessary for their consideration."
must also place on record that whereas prior to the amendment in 1955, the
views of the State Legislatures were to be ascertained not only with respect to
proposal to the introduction of the Bill but also the provisions thereof, but
then those words have been omitted in the amended proviso; the only requirement
being a reference to Bill which comes within the purview 10 of Article 3. Once
such reference has been made, the ordinary rules of Parliamentary procedure shall
govern the same.
The question came up
for consideration before a Constitution Bench in Babulal Parate v. The State of
Bombay and Anr. [(1960) 1 SCR 605], wherein the question of constitutionality
of Section 8A was raised. Therein, proposal was made for formation of three
separate units, namely, Union Territory of Bombay, State of Maharashtra
including Marathawada and Vidarbha and the State of Gujarat including
Saurashtra and Cutch.
territory for which the Union Territory of Bombay was to be constituted was
included in the State of Maharashtra. This Court repelled the contention that a
fresh reference to the State Legislature was necessary and a fresh Bill was
required to be introduced in the Parliament opining that the Parliament was not
bound to accept the views of one of the legislature or the other.
taking into consideration the contentions raised by the petitioner therein that
a substantial modification of the original proposal of three units contained in
the Bill had been obtained upon holding discussions on the subject, it could
not be stated that the State Legislature had no opportunity of expressing its
views in favour of a composite union instead of three separate units if it so
desired, it was opined :
11 "That being
the position we see no reasons for importing into the construction of Article 3
any doctrinaire consideration of the sanctity of the rights of States or even
for giving an extended meaning to the expression `State' occurring therein.
None of the constituent units of the Indian Union was sovereign and independent
in the sense the American colonies or the Swiss Cantons were before they formed
their federal unions. The constituent Assembly of India, deriving its power
from the sovereign people, was unfettered by any previous commitment in
evolving a constitutional pattern suitable to the genius and requirements of
the Indian people as a whole. Unlike some other federal legislature,
Parliament, representing the people of India as a whole, has been vested with
the exclusive power of admitting or establishing new States, increasing or
diminishing the area of an existing State or altering its boundaries, the
Legislature or Legislatures of the States concerned having only the right to an
expression of views on the proposals. It is significant that for making such
territorial adjustments it is not necessary even to invoke the provisions
governing constitutional amendments."
Legislature of the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot be said to have been wholly
unaware of the question as to whether the District of Haridwar was to be
included in the proposed statute or not. From the proceedings of the debates
held in the Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly, it appears that one Shri
Bhagat Singh Koshyari categorically stated that he had with him a list of 250
Pradhans, people from Haridwar and Udhamsingh Nagar, who had met the Prime
Minister and wanted the said districts to merge with 12 the new State and,
thus, a question was asked as to how could it be said that the residents of the
said districts did not want them to be merged with the proposed State of
member Shri Tirath Singh Rawat stated that while formation of Uttranchal is not
in dispute; inclusion of Haridwar and exclusion of Udham Singh Nagar was
different, opining :
Haridwar district, Uttaranchal will be incomplete. As has been discussed
earlier, its culture, religiosity and its being the doorway to the hills! It is
a tourist spot, Gangotri, Yamunotri, Badrinath and Kedarnath's pilgrimage
Just now my elder
respected Ram Saran Dasji said Haridwar and Udhamsingh Nagar should not be a
part of Uttaranchal."
Lalji Tandon also stated that amendment introduced by the State Government show
that Haridwar has been considered to be a part of Uttaranchal.
One of the other
members Shri Bansi Dhar Bhagat stated :
concede that a State should not be formed on the basis of language, we cannot
dream Uttaranchal without Udhamsingh Nagar. The same is the case of Haridwar. I
request that along with Udhamsingh Nagar, the entire district of Haridwar
should form part of Uttaranchal.
Haridwar is itself a
sacred place and the only passage-way to the four sacred shrines of 13
Uttaranchal. Therefore, I request that it should be included in
Yet again, Shri Tilak
Raj Behrar in his speech, stated :
Nagar has always been a part of Kumaon. I understand that some outsiders tried
to vitiate the atmosphere but could not succeed.
They tried for
referendum but failed. They came back empty-handed. These people have also
expressed their desire to remain in Uttaranchal.
They want that the
areas of Fazalganj, Bijnore, Nagina, Dhampur, Najibabad and Haridwar, from
Khatima to Haridwar, abutting the national highway, should be given to it so
that Uttaranchal becomes a big, strong State."
Dr. Ramesh Pokharival
`Nishank' pointed out that in the earlier 13th Schedule, the entire District of
Haridwar was to be included in Uttaranchal, reiterating `Haridwar was a central
corridor for to and from movement'.
Shri Ambrish Kumar,
who was a Member of the State Assembly and filed a separate writ application
which has been dismissed for default stated :
Nagar was a part of Nainital district and the proposal was for that district.
But I want to know how their own Government proposed for the formation of
Uttaranchal without Haridwar? That too on three occasions. All had then voted
unanimously so can they change those sentiments today. Do they have that right
today when they want Haridwar be included in Uttaranchal?"
the Constituent Assembly debates, it appears that a motion to introduce the new
proviso was discussed, according to Prof. K.T. Shah for the purpose of consulting
the Legislature of the State name or boundaries whereof are proposed to be
altered or which areas were proposed to be increased or decreased.
`consultation' means differently in different context. While a power to
introduce the Bill is kept with the Parliament, consultation with the State
Legislature although is mandatory but its recommendations were not binding on
the Parliament. `Consultation' in a case of this nature would not mean
concurrence. It only means to ask or seek for the views of a person on any
given subject. The views of the State Legislature certainly would be taken into
consideration but the same would not mean that the Parliament would be bound
thereby. Substantive compliance of the said provision shall serve the purpose.
What is mandatory is that the President may refer the Bill to the Legislative
Assembly for obtaining its views but it will bear repetition to state that the
Parliament would not be bound by the views of the State Legislature and even in
a case where substantive amendment is carried out, the amended Parliamentary
Bill need not be referred to the State Legislature again for obtaining its
discussions have taken place amongst the members of the Legislative Assembly.
They resolved to exclude even the town of Haridwar.
Government, however, opined that the Bill should be introduced in the
Parliament in the amended form.
view of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution
Bench, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this application.
writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to