Case: Mangal Singh &amp; Anr Vs. Union Of India

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 hill area 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 odd 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 ceased to be members of the Legislative Council, 14 members, it is claimed by the appellants, belong to the Haryana area and 2 to be Himachal Pradesh Union territory2. 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.

Reasoning:
The law referred to in Arts. 2 and 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 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 Art. 4 by the Parliament which has not effective legislative executive and judicial organsBy Art. 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 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 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 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 bicameral 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.