PRADEEP CHAUDHARY & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 05-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 112 
PRADEEP CHAUDHARY & ORS. 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
(Transfer Case (Civil) No. 62 of 2002) 
MAY 05, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 3, proviso - State, 
re-organisation of - Formation of State of Uttranchal -
C Reference of Bill to State Legislature of UP - Said Bill 
including only city of Haridwar - Amendment of Bill by 
Parliament - Reference to State Legislature - Resolution to 
exclude Haridwar - Inclusion of district of Haridwar in State 
of Uttaranchal by Parliament - Writ petition on the ground of 
o violation of proviso to Article 3 - Held: It is mandatory for the 
President to refer the Bill to Legislative Assembly for 
obtaining its views but Parliament would not be bound by the 
recommendations -
Consultation would not mean 
concurrence but only means to ask or seek for the views -
E 
Where substantive amendment is carried out, the amended 
Parliamentary Bill need not be referred to State Legislature 
again for obtaining its fresh views - Detailed discussions took 
place amongst members of State Legislative Assembly to 
exclude town of Haridwar - However, Central Government 
F 
opined that Bill should be introduced in the Parliament in the 
amended form - Hence, writ petitions dismissed - Uttar 
Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 - s. 3. 
The present matter is before this Court by the 
appellants-residents of the district of Haridwar, 
G challenging the violation of the mandatory requirements 
envisaged under the proviso appended to Article 3 of the 
Constitution of India, 1950 while including the district of 
Haridwar in the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand). 
H 
112 
; 
PRADEEP CHAUDHARY & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 113 
&ANR. 
Dismissing the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A bare perusal of Article 3 of the 
Constitution of India, 1950 would clearly show that 
formation of a new State by separation of territories from 
A 
a State or by uniting two or more States or parts thereof 8 
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 C 
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. [Para 12] [121-B-E] 
D 
1.2. 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, E 
widened the scope of the Bill which is to be referred by 
the President to the State Legislature. Indisputably, 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. F 
When, however, the views of the State Legislature were 
not received in time, the Parliament would be free to 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 G 
Bill in either of the Houses, either in the same form or with 
amendments. [Para 13 and 14] [121-F-H; 122-A] 
Durga Oas Basu's commentary on the Constitution of 
India 8th Edn. p.467, referred to 
H 
114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
1.3. 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 
B being a reference to Bill which comes within the purview 
of Article 3. Once such reference has been made, the 
ordinary rules of Parliamentary procedure shall govern 
the same. [Para 16] [122-D-E] 
1.4. The Legislature of the State of Uttar Pradesh 
C 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 BS 
D c

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