LexSTATE OF SERAIKELLA versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1951
.April 6.
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1951]
STATE OF SERAIKELLA
fl.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Suit No. 1 of 1950)
STATE OF DHENKANAL
fl.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Suit No. 2 of 1950)
STATE OF BAUDH
fl.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Suit No. 3 of 1950)
STATE OF TIGIRIA
fl.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Suit No. 4 of 1950)
STATE OF ATHGARH
fl.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Suit No. 5 of 1950)
STA TE OF BARAMBA
fl.
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Suit No. 6 of 1950)
STA TE OF NARSINGPUR
"·
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
(Suit No. 7 of 1950)
t SHRI HAluLAL KANIA C. J .,
PA"rANJ ALI
SAS TRI,
MEH1l
CHAND MAHAJAN, S. R. DAS and VIVIAN BosE JJ.]
Constitution of India, Arts. 363 (! ), 374 (2)-Indian States-
Accession to India under Instruments of Accession-Orders treat-
jng States as having merged in lnd~a-Suit to declare orders ultra
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
475
vires and enforce rights under Instrument of Accession-Suits filed
in
Federal
Court
before 26th
/anuary 1950-/urisdiction
of
Supreme Court to try such suits-Scope of Arts. 363 (1) and 374 (2).
Article 374 (2) of the
Constitution of India provides that all
suits, appeals and proceedings pending in the Federal Court at
the commencement of this Constitution shall stand removed
to
the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court shall
have jurisdic-
tion to hear and determine the same.
Article 363 ( l) provides
that notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,
neither the
Supreme Court nor any other Court shall have jurisdiction in any
dispute arising out of any
provision· of a treaty, agreement
or
similar instrument entered into or executed before the commence-
ment of this Constitution by any Ruler of an Indian State.
Certain States had acceded to the Dominion of India under
Instruments of Accession in August 1947.
They were treated as
having merged in the
Province of Bihar and
were administered
as a part of that Province under Orders issued under the Extra
Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947, and · s. 290-A of the
Govern-
ment of
India
_Act,
1935
(as amended
by
the
Constituent
Assembly Act of 1949). The
States instituted
suits
in
the
Federal Court of India before the 26th January, 1950, for a decla-
ration that the various
Orders under which the
States came to be
administered as a part of
Bihar and the laws under which those
Orders were ·made were
ultra vires and void and the Province
of Bihar had accordingly no authority to carry on the administ -
Tation of the States. The suits stood transferred to the
Supreme
Court of India under Art. 374 (2) of the new Constitution:
Held,
per
KANIA
C. J.,
PATANJALI SASTRI J. and
BosE J.
(MAHAJAN
).
dissenting).-That even
though
the
suits were
instituted before the new Constitution came into force and under
Art. 374 (2) they stood removed to the Supreme Court, neverthe-
less the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 374 (2) was
controlled by Art. 363 ( l) of the
Constitution in view
of the .
opening words
of the latter
namely, "notwithstanding anything
in this
Constitution". As the suits were really to enforce the
plaintiffs rights under their
Instruments of
Accession and the
dispute between the parties really arose out of those instruments,
under Art. 363 (1) the Supreme
Court had no jurisdiction to
hear the suits.
This view did not involve giving
any
retros-
pective effect to Art. 361 (3).
MAHAJAN J.
(contra.)-Art. 363
takes away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the subjects
mentioned therein if suits about
them
were instituted after the
26th January,
1950,
or
disputes concerning them
arise
after
that date, while Art. 374 { 12) empowers the Supreme Court to
hear and determine suits
which were pending in the
Federal
Court on the
26th January,
1950, and
which that court
was
competent to hear and determine.
There is no confilct between
1951
State of
Seraikel/a
and Others.
v.
Union of India
and Another.
1951
Sl!Jleef
&raikella
and 01/urs
v.
l!nion qf India
""" Malltlr.
Ka11iaC.J.
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[I951J
these articles, and the
Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear
the suit.
DAs J.-As the plaintiff States, by virtue of the States Merger
(Governor's Provinces) Order, 1949, were immediately before the
commencement of the new Constitution being administered as if
they
formed
part of the
Provinces of
Bihar or Orissa the
territories of Bihar and
OrExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.