- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mangal Singh And Another v. Union Of India .
Factual and Procedural Background
The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 came into force on 1 November 1966 and divided the erstwhile State of Punjab into: (i) the new State of Punjab, (ii) the State of Haryana, (iii) the Union Territory of Chandigarh, and (iv) the transfer of certain eastern hilly areas to the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. The Act re-determined the composition of the State legislatures: the old bicameral Punjab legislature (154 Assembly members and 51 Council members) was replaced by a new bicameral Punjab legislature with 87 Assembly seats and a unicameral Haryana legislature with 54 Assembly seats. Sixteen sitting members of the former Legislative Council were unseated, of whom fourteen were said to belong to the territory that became Haryana.
Two individuals filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court challenging the Act as “illegal and ultra vires of the Constitution.” The High Court dismissed the petition. The present appeal before the Supreme Court of India followed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 13(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966—which temporarily constitutes the Haryana Legislative Assembly with 54 sitting members—violates the mandatory requirements of Article 170(1) of the Constitution regarding election and minimum strength of a State Legislative Assembly.
- Whether Sections 20, 22 and the Seventh Schedule of the Act, by unseating members of the old Punjab Legislative Council who were residents of Haryana while permitting eight members from the Union Territory of Chandigarh to continue, deny equality guaranteed under the Constitution.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Section 13(1) is unconstitutional because Article 170(1) mandates that every Legislative Assembly be constituted solely by members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies and have not less than sixty members; the Haryana Assembly of 54 members therefore violates the minimum strength and election requirement.
- The differential treatment in Section 22—unseating 14 Council members from Haryana while allowing eight members from Chandigarh to remain—amounts to discriminatory denial of equality.
Union of India's Arguments (as reflected in the affidavit)
- The impugned provisions are “supplemental, incidental and consequential” measures that Parliament is authorised to enact under Articles 2, 3 and, by extension, Article 4 of the Constitution when creating or reorganising States.
- Chandigarh is to serve as the capital of the reorganised Punjab; retaining its members in the Punjab Legislative Council is a valid classification linked to functional requirements.
- The appellants are not “persons aggrieved” because they were not members of the Legislative Council and thus suffer no personal legal injury.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
On Article 170(1) and Section 13(1): The Court observed that Article 170 is not the only constitutional provision relevant to the composition of a Legislative Assembly. Articles 2 and 3 empower Parliament to establish new States and, under Article 4(1), to enact “supplemental, incidental and consequential” provisions—including those concerning legislative representation. Clause (2) of Article 4 expressly states that such a law shall not be deemed an amendment under Article 368. Therefore, Parliament’s power under Article 4 implicitly authorises it to fix the Assembly strength below the minimum in Article 170(1) as a temporary measure. The Court rejected the argument that Article 4’s power is limited to amending only the First and Fourth Schedules.
On alleged denial of equality in the Legislative Council: Membership of a Legislative Council is not based on territorial constituencies but on nomination and indirect elections under Article 171(3). Following reorganisation, precise compliance with Article 171(3) would have required fresh elections; hence Parliament adopted an ad hoc criterion and unseated members residing in the territories that now constitute Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. The Court held that the appellants, not being sitting Council members, suffered no legal injury and therefore could not claim discrimination. Moreover, residency in Haryana does not confer a right to sit in the Punjab Legislative Council, and the continuation of members from Chandigarh does not infringe any right of Haryana residents.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sections 13, 20 and 22 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The immediate consequence is that the temporary composition of the Haryana Legislative Assembly and the adjustments to the Punjab Legislative Council remain operative. The decision affirms Parliament’s broad authority under Articles 2, 3 and 4 to enact consequential provisions when reorganising States, but it does not establish a novel constitutional principle beyond the specific context of State reorganisation.
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 Section 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 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.
2. 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.
3. In this Court two contentions were urged in support of the appeal:
(1) Constitution of the Legislative Assembly of Haryana by Section 13(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, violates the mandatory provisions of Article 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.
4. By Section 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 Section 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.
5. Constitution of the Legislative Assembly of Haryana on November 1, 1966, is, it is contended, violative of Article 170 of the Constitution. In terms Article 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 Article 170 is not the only provision having a bearing on the constitution of a Legislative Assembly.
6. By Article 2 Parliament may by law admit into the Union or establish new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit; and Article 3 provides that 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 Article 2 or Article 3 shall, it is provided by Article 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 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 clause (2) of Article 4 it is provided:
“No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of Articles 368.”
The law referred to in Articles 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 Article 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 Article 4 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 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 Article 4. Power with which Parliament is invested by Articles 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 Parliament may exercise by law is supplemental, incidental or consequential to the admission, establishment or formation 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 Article 4 by Parliament which has not effective legislative, executive and judicial organs.
7. Power to reduce the total number of members of the Legislative Assembly below the minimum prescribed by Article 170(1) is, in our judgment, implicit in the authority to make laws under Article 4. Such a provision is undoubtedly an amendment of the Constitution, but by the express provision contained in clause (2) of Article 4, no such law which amends the First and the Fourth Schedule or which makes supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions is to be deemed an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368.
8. Our attention was invited to Article 371-A(2)(h) of the Constitution which makes an express provision in derogation to Article 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 Council, by public notification specify in this behalf” the membership of the Legislative Assembly at 46. Power of 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 Article 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 Parliament. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that Section 13(1) was not invalid merely because it departed from the minimum prescribed as the total membership of the Legislative Assembly for a State.
9. Sections 20 & 22 of the Act deal with the constitution of the Legislative Council. By Section 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 Section 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 sub-section (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 unseated. 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 amounted to denial of equality. In the affidavit on behalf of the Union of India it was submitted that because Chandigarh is to be the capital of the existing State of 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, and that the provision was consequential and incidental to the main provision constituting the State of Punjab, and that in any event, the appellants were not persons aggrieved by the so-called discriminatory treatment.
10. By Article 171(3) of the Constitution membership of the Legislative 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 or 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 clause 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 requirements of Article 171(3) could however be made without fresh elections. 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, 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.
11. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Alert