EDWINGSON BAREH versus STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 770 · Decided: 29-11-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

770 
EDWINGSON BAREH 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS 
November 29, 1965 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND P. SATYANARAYANA 
RAJU, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 
1950, VI 
Governor's power-If 
Parliamentary 
changes effective. 
Schedule, 
Para 1(3)-Scope of 
legislation 
necessary . to. make 
On 26th January 1950, the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District 
was 
formed as one of the Tribal Areas of Assam. The area along with other 
Tribal Areas mentioned 
in Parts A and B of the Table appended 
to 
paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, are governed 
A 
B 
c 
by the provisions prescribed by that Schedule. 
Under Paragraph 2(4) 
of the Schedule, the administration of the United 
Khasi-Jaintia Hills 
District vested in the District Council inaugurated on 27th June 1952. 
D 
The appellant was elected as Chief Executive 
Member of the District 
Council in March 1963, and by various 
notifications 
the term of the 
District Council has 
been 
extended up to 2nd May 1965. On 26th 
August 1963, the Governor of Assam appointed a Commission 
under 
paragraph 14(1) to examine and report on the creation of a new autono-
mous district for the people of Jowai sub-division and for excluding it 
from the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District. The Commission made its 
report for such creation and exclusion on 
20th January 
1964. The 
E 
Council of Ministers considered the ·report, 
decided 
to accept the re-
commendation, drew up an 
explanatory memorandum as required 
by 
paragraph 14(2) of the Schedule and sent the entire file to the Governor 
who noted on it "seen thanks". The Minister in charge, then laid the 
report of the Commission and the explanatory memorandum, stating that 
the Government had decided to accept the recommendation of the Gov-
ernor on the report, before the Assembly. and the Assembly passed a 
resolution approving the action 
proposed. 
On 23rd November 1964, 
F 
the Governor issued a Notification by which the new autonomous dis-
trict was created and was excluded from the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills 
District with effect from !st December 1964. 
The appellant challenged 
the Notification by a petition for the issue of a writ in the High Court., 
which was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that : (i) Paragraph 1 (3) 
of the Schedule does not confer upon the Governor power to constitute 
a new autonomous district and that it could be done only by Parliamen-
ta:ry legislation under Paragraph 21 of the Schedule under which powers 
are granted to Parliament to amend the Schedule and ev~n if he had 
the power, the. Governor's decision must be confirm•ed by Par1iamentary 
legislatiofl; and (ii) the Notification was invalid because the mandatory 
provisions of paragraph 14 had not been complied with. 
HELD (Per Chief Justice, Wanchoo, Ramaswami and Satyanarayana 
Raju, JJ.) 
: (i) When paragraph 1(3) (c) provides that the Governor 
may, by public notification, create a new autonomous districts; it does not 
contemplate, that the Constitution requires something more to be done 
by Parliament, in order to make the notification effective. [782 A] 
G 
H 
• 
' 
• 
• 
• 
A 
·' 
B 
c 
D 
r 
E 
F 
G 
• 
H 
EDWJNGSON v. ASSAM 
771 
Paragraph 1 ( 3) confers on the Governor power to issue a notifica-
tion for the purposes of bringing about any of the results enumerated 
by els. (a) to (g) of the paragraph. Clause (c) refers to the power of 
Governor to create a new autonomous district; cl. ( e) refers to the power 
to diminish the area of any autonomous district, and cl. (g) refers to the 
power to define the boundaries of any autonomous district. The proviso 
to the paragraph imposes a condition on the exercise of the powers con-
ferred by els. ( c) to ( f) by requiring the Governor before exercising the 
powers to appoint a Commission under Paragraph 14(1) to report on 
those matters and then to consider its report. 
Paragraph 1 ( 3) indicates 
that the Constitution has delegated to the Governor a part of the power 
conferred on Parliament itself by paragraph 21. If the Governor has 
been clothed with the rele,vant power, the exercise of the power must by 
itself, be effective to bring about the results intended by els. (c) to (f) 
of paragraph 1 (3). 
The power must be exercised subject to the 
condition prescribed by the proviso, but once it is properly exercised it 
becomes effective and there is no need for parliamentary legislafon in that 
behal

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