CASE BRIEF
MANGAL SINGH
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Appellant- MANGAL SINGH
Respondents- UNION OF INDIA
Decided on November 17,1966
Statutes referred:
- Indian Constitution 1949 Article 2,3,4,170,171(3), 368,371(A)
- The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966
- The Legislative Councils Act, 1957
Facts:
- The Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966-hereinafter called ‘the Act’-was enacted with the object of reorganising the State of Punjab.
- The act came into force on the 1st of November ,1966 as a consequence of which the eastern hilly areas of the old state were transferred to Himanchal Pradesh .
- Chandigarh territory in Kharar was constituted as a union territory and the rest got split in parts into the state of Punjab and Haryana.
- Punjab earlier had a bi-cameral legislature with 154 members in the Legislative Assembly and 51 members in the Legislative Council.
- The new State of Punjab consisted of 87 members. and the Haryana Legislative Assembly consisted of 54 members. The new State of Punjab also had a bi-cameral Legislature.
- 16 members names were set out in the Seventh Schedule (Act) to be members of the Legislative Council, the rest of them continued to be members of the Legislative Council of the new State of Punjab.
- Out of the 16 members who ceased to be members of the Legislative Council, 14 members, it is claimed by the appellants, belong to the Haryana area and 2 to the Himachal Pradesh Union territory.
- The Act was challenged as “illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution” on diverse grounds in a writ petition filed by the two appellants in the High Court of Punjab. The High Court rejected the petition.
Issue
(1) Constitution of the Legislative Assembly of Haryana by s. 1 3(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, violated the mandatory provisions of Art. 170(1) of the Constitution
(2) By enacting that. 8 members of the Legislative Council who were residents of the Union territory of Chandigarh continued to sit in the Legislative Council in the new State of Punjab, the members elected to the Legislative Council from the Haryana area unseated, there was denial of equality.
Contentions by Parties-
Appellant’s Arguments
Same as the issue above.
Respondent’s arguments
Union of India had submitted an affidavit on its behalf stating and explaining the fact that because Chandigarh was going to be the capital of the already existing State of Punjab and would continue to be the seat of new Government of the Punjab.
The members from Chandigarh were admitted as members of the Legislative Council of the new State of Punjab. This whole situation was an effect to the main provision constituting the State of Punjab, therefore there were no persons aggrieved by the so-called discriminatory treatment.
Judgment:
The apex court bench comprising of SHAH, J.C., RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ), SIKRI, S.M., RAMASWAMI, V., VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. held the following:
1. The appeal must be dismissed of the appellants
2. Power to reduce the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly below the minimum prescribed by Art.170 (1) is implicit in the authority to make laws under Art. 4 of Constitution. Such a provision is undoubtedly an amendment of the Constitution, but by the express provision provided in Art. 4(2) , no such law which amends the First and the Fourth Schedule or which makes supplemental, incidental and consequential provision is to be deemed an amendment of the Constitution for, purposes of Art. 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 States power to modify provisions of the Constitution in order to tide, over a temporary difficulty may be exercised by the Parliament.
3. Parliament could not make adjustments as would strictly conform to the requirements of Art. 171(3) without fresh elections. It, therefore, adopted an ad hoc test and unseated members of the Council who were110 residents of the Haryana area. There was, however, no discrimination in unseating members from the Haryana Area of which appellants could complain. The appellants were not the sitting members of the Legislative Council of the old State and no personal right of the appellants was infringed by unseating those members. A resident of the State of Haryana merely because of that character, cannot claim to sit in the Punjab Legislative Council. By allowing the members from the Chandigarh area to continue to remain members of the new State of Punjab no right of the residents of Haryana was violated.
Rule of Law–
The provision of the law which was under scrutiny was the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 as “illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution” on diverse grounds.
Conclusion
In Conclusion it could be said that through this case the need for the organs of a state such as the legislative, executive and judicial are necessary to be setup by the parliament is evident and where there exists no organ prior to the setup of a new state it will deemed to be not admitted according to Article 4.
Prepared by Faigha Naz
