BABULAL PARATE versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1960] 1 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 28-08-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
BABULAL PARATE 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER 
(S. R. DAS, C.J., s. K. DAS, A. K.. SARKAR, 
605 
K. N. W ANCHOO, and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
States, Reorganisation of-Modification of Bill by Parliament-
Such modification, if must be ref erred to State Legislature-ConsU-
tution of India, Art. 3, proviso-States Reorganisation Act, z956, 
tXXXVII of z956), s. 8(z). 
A Bill introduced in the House of the People on the report 
of the States Reorganisation Commission and as recommended by 
the President under the proviso to Art. 3 of the Constitution, 
contained a proposal for the formation of three separate units, 
viz., (1) Union territory of Bombay, (2) Maharashtra, including 
Marathawada and Vidarbha and (3) Gujrat, including Saurashtra 
·and Cutch. This Bill was referred by the President to the State 
Legislatures concerned and their views obtained. The Joint 
Select Committee of the House of the People (Lok Sabha) and the 
Council of States (Rajya Sabha) considered the Bill and made its. 
report. Subsequently, Parliament amended some of the clauses 
and passed the Bill which came to be known as the States 
RE~organisation Act, 1956. That Act by s. 8(1) constituted a 
composite State of Bombay instead of the three separate units as 
originally proposed in the Bill. The petition, out of which the 
present appeal has arisen, was filed by the appellant under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Bombay. His 
contention was that the said Act was passed in contravention 
of the provisions of Art. 3 of the Constitution, since the Legisla-
ture of Bombay had not been given an opportunity of expressing 
its views on the formation of the composite State. The High 
Court dismissed the petition. 
Held, that the proviso to Art. 3 lays down two conditions 
and under the second condition therein stated, what the President 
has to·reier to the State Legislature for its opinion is the proposal 
contained in the Bill. On a true construction, the proviso does 
not contemplate that if Parliament subsequently modifies that 
proposal, there must be a fresh bill or a fresh reference to the 
State Legislature. 
The word 'State' in Art. 3 of the Constitution has obvious 
reference to Art. ,I and the States mentioned in the First Schedule 
to the Constitution, and the expression 'Legislature of the State' 
means the. Legislature of such a State. TJ:iere are, therefore, no 
reasons for the application of any special doctrine of democratic 
theory or practice prevalent in other countries in interpreting 
those words ; nor any justification for giving an extended meaning 
to the word 'State' in determining the true scope and eftect of the 
proviso. 
'11 
z959 
Aucust 118. 
r959 
Babulal Parate 
v. 
Tiu State of 
Bombay 
and Another 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] 
The requirements of Art. IV, s. 3 of the American Constitu-
tion are materially different from those of the second proviso to 
Art. 3 of the Indi&n Constitution and, consequently, decisions 
based on the former are not in point. 
State of Louisiana v. State of Mississipi, (1905) 202 U.S. l 
and State of Washington v. State of Oregon, (1908) 2II U.S. 127, 
held inapplicable. 
State of ;Texas v. George W. 
White, (1869) 74 U.S. 700 
referred to. 
It is not correct to contend that the word 'Bill' in the proviso 
must be interpreted to include an amendment of any of the clauses 
of the Bill or at least a substantial amendment thereof, and that 
any proposal contained in such amendment must be referred 
back to the State Legislature. Such an interpretation of Art. 3 
will nullify the effect of Art. 122(1) and is untenable in view of 
the provisions in Arts. II7 and II8 of the Constitution. 
Although the formation of a composite State in terms of s. 8 
of the Act was without doubt a substantial modification of the. 
proposal as originally contained in the Bill, it could not be said 
that the said modification was not germane to the subject mafter 
of the original proposal or was a direct negative thereof, so as to 
be beyond the scope of an amendment. 
T. H. Vakil v. Bombay Presidency Radio Club Ltd., (1944) 47 
Born. L.R. 428, applied. 
Therefore, the Act could not be held to have been enacted in 
violation of Art. 3 of the Constitution. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
342 of 1956. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated Septem-
ber 14, 1956, of the Bombay High Court, in Special 
Civil Application No. 2496of1956. 
R.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.