MANGAL SINGH & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 17-11-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MANGAL SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
November 17, 1966 
[K. SUBBA RAo, C.J., ]. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI 
AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Arts. 4, 170(1)-State Legislative Assembly-
Minimum membership prescribed-Reduction 
if violates Art. 170(1)-
Legislative Council-Unseating of nv.nnbers elected from area con.rtituted 
having unicameral Legislature. 
Punjab Reorganisation Act (31 of 1966), ss. 13, 20 and 22-Validity. 
The Punjab Reorganisation Act. 1966, carved out of the old State of 
Punjab two new States, Punjab and Haryana, transferred some areas. to 
Himachal Pradesh and constituted Chandigarh, 
a territory of the old 
State, into a Union territory. The old State had a bi-<:ameral Legislature 
and so also has the new Stlte of Punjab; but that of Haryana is to be uni-
cameral. Under the Act the Legislative Assembly of Haryana is to consist 
of only 54 members; members of the Legislative Council oi the old State 
belonging to Haryana area are unseated, while those members residing _in 
the Union Territory of Chandigarh continue to be members of the Legis-
lative Council of that new State of Punjab. The appellants, none of whom 
was a sitting member of the Legislative Council of the old State, challenged 
tite legality of the Act in a writ petition, which the High Court rejected. 
In appeal to this Coun, the appellants contended that (i) Constitution of 
the Legislative Assembly of Haryana hr. s. 13 (I) of the Act which departs 
from the miaimum membership prescribed to the State Legislative Assem-
bly violates the mandatory provisions of the Art. 170(1) of the Constitu-
tion; and (ii) by enacting that members of the Legislative Council of the 
old State residing in the Union Territory of Chandigarh shall continue to 
sit in the Legislative Council in the new State of Punjab and by enacting 
that the members elected to tho Legislative Council from the Haryana ar<a 
shall be unseated, there was denial of equality. 
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed. 
(i) Power to reduce the to'al number of members of tho Legislative 
Assembly below the minimum prescribed by An. 170( I) is implicit in the 
authority to make laws under Art. 4 of the Constitution. Such a provioion 
is undoubtedly an amendment of the Constitution, but by the express pro-
vision contair.ed in Art. 4(2), no such law which amends the First and 
the Founh Schedule or which makes supplemental, incidental and conse-
quential provision is to be deemed an amendment of the C.Onstitution for 
purposes of An. 368. The Constitution also contemplates by Art. 4 that 
in the enactment of laws for giving effect to the admission. establishment 
or formation of new States or alteration of areas and the boundaries of 
those Sta~es power to modify provisions of the Constitution in order to tide 
over a temporary difficulty may be exercised by the Parliament. [112 H; 
113 C-D] 
Cii) Parliament could not make adjustments as would strictly conform 
to the requirements of An. 171(3) without fresh elections. 
It. therefore, 
adopted an ad hoc test and unseated members of the Council who were 
110 
SUPIU!MB COUllT REPORTS 
[l 967) 2 S.C.R. 
residents of the Haryana !lfea. There was, however. no di!tCI'imination in 
unseating members from the Haryana Area of which appellants could 
complail\. The appellants were not the sitting members of the Legislative 
Council of the old State and no personal right of the appellants was in-
fringed by un•eating those member.;. 
A rrsidcoi of the State of Haryana 
merely because of that character. cannot claim to sit in the Punjab Legi•-
lative Council. 
By allowing the members from 1he Chandigarh area 
to 
continue to remain members of the new State of Punjab no right of the 
rC'Sidents of Haryana was violated. [I 14 E.-H; 115 A] 
C!vn. APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2314 of 
1966. 
Appeal from the judgment ard order dated October 7, 1966 of 
the Punjab High Court in Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Writ 
Petition No. 790-D of 1966. 
M. C. Setalvad, RilVinder Narain, J. B. Dadachanji, for the 
appellants. 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-Genera/, R. Ganapathy Iyer, R. N. 
Saclrthey, and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Shah, J. The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966-hereinaftcr 
called 'the Act'-was enacted with the object ofrcorganising the 
State of Punjab. By the Act which came into force on November I, 
1966, the eastern hil

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