http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: MANGAL SINGH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/11/1966

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ) SIKRI, S.M. RAMASWAMI, V. VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.

CITATION:  1967 AIR  944            1967 SCR  (2) 109  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1973 SC1461  (69,227,290,565,1023,1317,1502

ACT: Constitution  of  India, Arts. 4,  170(1)-State  Legislative Assembly-Minimum membership prescribed-Reduction if violates Art. 170(1)-Legislative Council-Unseating of members elected from area constituted having unicameral Legislature. Punjab  Reorganisation Act (31 of 1966), ss. 13, 20 and  22- Validity.

HEADNOTE: 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 bicameral Legislature and so also has the new State of Punjab; but that of Haryana is  to be  unicameral.  Under the Act the Legislative  Assembly  of Haryana  is  to consist of only 54 members; members  of  the Legislative  Council of 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 Legislative  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   the legality of the Act in a writ petition, which the High Court rejected.  In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that (i) Constitution of the Legislative Assembly of Haryana by  s.  13(1)  of the Act which  departs  from  the  minimum membership  prescribed  to the  State  Legislative  Assembly violates  the mandatory provisions of the Art 170(1) of  the Constitution;  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 the Legislative Council from the Haryana area shall be unseated, there was denial of equality. HELD : The appeal must be dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

(i)  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. [112,H] 1 13 C-D] (ii) Parliament could not make adjustments as would strictly conform  to  the requirements of Art. 171(3)  without  fresh elections.   It,  therefore,  adopted an  ad  hoe  test  and unseated members of the Council who were 110 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 in fringed 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. [114 E-H; 115 A]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal-No. 2314 of 1966. Appeal from the judgment and 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, Ravinder Narain, J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellants. S.   V.  Gupte, Solicitor-General, R. Ganapathy.Iyer, R.  N. Sachthey, and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah,  J.  The Punjab Reorganisation  Act,  1966-hereinafter called ’the Act’-was enacted with the object of reorganising the  State of Punjab.  By the Act which came into  force  on November  1, 1966, the eastern hilly areas of the old  State were transferred to the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh; the  territory  known  as Chandigarh in  Kharar  tahsil  was constituted  into  a  Union  territory;  and  the  remaining territory  was divided between the new State of  Punjab  and the Haryana State.  The old State of Punjab had a bi-cameral Legislature with 154 members in the Legislative Assembly and 51  members in the Legislative Council.  Under s. 13 of  the Act  as from November 1, 1966, the Legislative  Assembly  of the  new  State of Punjab consists of 87  members.  and  the Haryana  Legislative Assembly consists of 54  members.   The new State of Punjab has also a bi-cameral Legislature.   Out of the original membership of 51. 16 members whose names are set  out  in the Seventh Schedule to the Act  ceased  to  be members  of  the  Legislative  Council,  and  the  remaining members  continued to be members of the Legislative  Council of  the  new  State of Punjab.  Out of the  16  members  who

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

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. 111               In  this Court two contentions were  urged  in               support of the appeal:               (1)   Constitution of the Legislative Assembly               of  Haryana  by  s.  1  3(1)  of  the   Punjab               Reorganisation   Act,   1966,   violates   the               mandatory  provisions  of Art. 170(1)  of  the               Constitution; and                (2)  By  enacting  that.  8  members  of  the               Legislative  Council who are residents of  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 the  Legislative  Council               from the Haryana area shall be unseated, there               is denial of equality. By s. 24 of the Act it is provided that the total number  of seats  in  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  Haryana  "to   be constituted  at  any  time  after  the  appointed  day  i.e. November  1, 1966 to be filled by persons chosen  by  direct election  from territorial constituencies, shall be  eighty- one."  It is clear that s. 13(1) which allocates fifty  four sitting   members  out  of  the  members  elected   to   the Legislative  Assembly  of  the old State of  Punjab  to  the Haryana area Legislative Assembly on November 1, 1966, is  a temporary provision. Constitution  of  the  Legislative Assembly  of  Haryana  on November 1, 1966, is, it is contended, violative of Art. 170 of  the  Constitution.   In terms Art.  170  enacts  that  a Legislative Assembly shall be constituted by members  chosen by  direct  elections from territorial  constituencies,  and that  the  Assembly  shall consist of  not  more  than  five hundred  and not less than sixty members.  But Art.  170  is not the only provision having a bearing on the  constitution of a Legislative Assembly. By Art. 2 the Parliament may by law admit into the Union  or establish  new  States on such terms and  conditions  as  it thinks  fit; and Art. 3 provides that the Parliament may  by law- (a)  form  a new State by separation of territory  from  any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State; (b)  increase the area of any State; (c)  diminish the area of any State; (d)  alter the boundaries of any State; (e)  alter the name of any State. Any  law  referred  to  in Art. 2 or Art.  3  shall,  it  is provided  by  Art.  4(1), contain  such  provision  for  the amendment  of the First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule  as may be necessary to give effect to the 112 provisions   of   the  law  and  may   also   contain   such supplemental,   incidental  and   consequential   provisions (including Provisions as to representation in Parliament and in  the Legislature or Legislatures ,of the State or  States affected by such law) as Parliament may deem necessary.   BY cl. (2) of Art. 4 it is provided: "No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

of this Constitution for the purposes of articles 368." The  law referred to in Arts. 2 & 3 may therefore  alter  or amend the First Schedule to the Constitution which sets  out the  names  of  the States and  description  of  territories thereof  ’and  the Fourth Schedule allotting  seats  to  the States  in  the Council of States in the  Union  Parliament. The  law so made may also make supplemental, incidental  and consequential  provisions  which  would  include  provisions relating to the setting up of the legislative, executive and judicial  organs  of the State essential  to  the  effective State administration under the Constitution, expenditure and distribution   of  revenue,  apportionment  of  assets   and liabilities,  provisions  as to  services,  application  and adaptation  of  laws,  transfer  of  proceedings  and  other related matters.  On the plain words of Art. 4, there is  no warrant  for  the  contention advanced by  counsel  for  the appellants    that   the   supplemental,   incidental    and consequential  provisions,  which by virtue of  Art.  4  the Parliament  is  competent  to make,  must  be  supplemental, incidental or consequential to the amendment of the First or the  Fourth  Schedule.  The argument that if it  be  assumed that the Parliament is invested with this wide power it  may conceivably  exercise power to abolish the  legislative  and judicial  organs  of the State altogether  is  also  without substance.   We  do  not  think  that  any  such  power   is contemplated  by Art. 4. Power with which the Parliament  is invested by Arts. 2 and 3, is power to admit, establish,  or form  new  States which conform to  the  democratic  pattern envisaged  by  the  Constitution; and the  power  which  the Parliament  may exercise by law is supplemental,  incidental or  consequential  to the admission, establishment  or  for- mation  of a State as contemplated by the Constitution,  and is  not  power to override the  constitutional  scheme.   No State  can  therefore be formed, admitted or set up  by  law under  Art.  4  by the Parliament which  has  not  effective legislative, executive and judicial organs. Power  to reduce the total number of members of  the  Legis- lative Assembly below the minimum prescribed by Art.  170(1) is, in our judgment, implicit in the authority to make  laws under  Art. 4. Such a provision is undoubtedly an  amendment of the Constitution, but by the express provision  contained in cl. (2) of Art. 4, no such law Which amends the First and the Fourth Schedule or which makes supplemental,  incidental and consequential provisions is to be                             113 deemed an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes  of Art.368. Our  attention  was  invited to  Art.   371A(2)(h)  of,  the Constitution which makes an express provision in  derogation to Art. 170(1) relating to the constitution of a Legislative Assembly     for    the    State    of     Nagaland,     and fixes"notwithstanding  anything in this Constitution  for  a period  of ten years from the date of the formation  of  the State  of  Nagaland  or  for such  further  period  as   the Governor  may, on the recommendations of the regional  Coun- cil,  by  public notification specify in  this  behalf"  the membership of the Legislative Assembly at 46.  Power of  the Parliament to make amendments in the Constitution by express enactment  so  ’as  to reduce the number  of  members  of  a Legislative  Assembly  below the minimum  prescribed  having regard to the exigency of a special case may not be  denied. But 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

provisions  of  the  Constitution in order to  tide  over  a temporary  difficulty  may be exercised by  the  Parliament. -The  High  Court was, therefore, right in holding  that  s. 13(1)  was not invalid merely because it departed from,  the minimum   prescribed   as  the  total  membership   of   the Legislative Assembly for a State. Sections  20 & 22 of the Act deal with the  constitution  of the  Legislative Council.  By s. 20 the Legislative  Council of   the   new  State  of  Punjab  is  to  consist   of   40 representatives and the Third Schedule to the Representation of  the People Act, 1950, is to stand modified  accordingly. By s. 22 it is provided:               "(1) On the appointed day, the sitting members               of the Legislative Council of Punjab specified               in the Seventh Schedule   shall  cease  to  be               members of that Council.               (2)   On  and  from  the  appointed  day,  all               sitting members of the Legislative Council  of               Punjab,  other  than  those  referred  to   in               subsection  (1), shall continue to be  members               of that Council. By  the Seventh Schedule, 16 members, of whom it is  claimed 14  are  from the territory which is now in  Haryana  State, have  been untreated.  It was claimed by the  appellants  in their  petition before the High Court that those 14  members of  the  Old Punjab Legislative Council "would cease  to  be members of the new Council" from November 1, 1966, whereas 8 members belonging to the newly constituted area of the Union territory of Chandigarh still continue to be members of  the new Punjab Legislative Council, and that such discriminatory treatment of members from the Haryana region      114      amounted to denial of equality.In the affidavit  on behalf of the  Union of India          it was submittedthat because Chandigarh is to be   the  capital of  the  existing Stateof Punjab and will 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,that     the     provision      was consequential and   incidental to the main       provision constituting the State of Punjab,  and that in theevent, the appellants were not persons aggrieved by the   so-called discriminatory treatment. By Art. 171(3) of the Constitution membership of the  Legis- lative Council is not from territorial constituencies: it is by  nomination,  indirect  election  or  by  election   from teachers’  and  graduates’. constituencies.   Of  the  total number  of  members of the Legislative Council of  a  State, one-third  are  to be elected by electorates  consisting  of members  of municipalities, district boards and  such  other local  authorities  in  the State,  one-twelfth  are  to  be elected by electorates consisting of persons residing in the State  who have been for at least three years  graduates  of any    university   in   India   ox    possess    equivalent qualifications, one-twelfth are to be elected by electorates consisting  of persons who have been engaged in teaching  in educational institutions within the State, one-third are, to be elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State  from  amongst  persons who are  not  members  of  the Assembly,  and  "the remainder" are to be nominated  by  the Governor  in accordance with the provisions of cl. 5.  These constituencies  are not territorial constituencies.  On  the reorganisation  of the old State of Punjab, adjustments  had to be made in the membership of the Legislative Council.  No such   adjustment   as  would  strictly   conform   to   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

requirements  of Art. 171(3) could however be  made  without fresh elections.  The Parliament therefore adopted an ad hoc test,  and  unseated  members  who  were  residents  in  the territory  of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh.  It is true,  as admitted  in the affidavit on behalf of the Union of  India, that members belonging to the Union territory of  Chandigarh will  be members of the new Punjab Legislative Council,  and members  from the Haryana State territory will be  unseated. Whether  in  unseating  the members from  Haryana  area  and allowing the members from the Chandigarh area to continue, a valid  classification is made on the ground that  Chandigarh is the capital of the two States need not detain us, because we  are  of  the view that no  discrimination  by  unseating members from the Haryana area can be deemed to be  practised against  the  appellants of which they  can  complain.   The appellants  were  not  sitting members  of  the  Legislative Council of the old State of Punjab and no personal right  of the  appellants is infringed by unseating the members  whose names  are set out in the Seventh Schedule.  Again  the  new State of Punjab is a bi-cameral Legislature.  The new  State of Haryana is uni-cameral.  It is not claimed,, 115 and  cannot  be  claimed, that a resident of  the  State  of Haryana  is,. merely because of that character, entitled  to sit  in  the Punjab Legislative Council.   By  allowing  the members  from  the  Chandigarh area to  continue  to  remain members  of  the  Legislative Council of the  new  State  of Punjab,  no right of the residents of Haryana  is  therefore violated. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.  Y. P.  Appeal dismissed- 116