West bengal v. union of india

Case west bengal v. UNion of India

1. State of West Bengal v Union of India AIR 1963 SC 1241 Facts: This Case is a suit filed by State of West Bengal against the Union of India for a declaration that parliament is not competent to make a law authorising the Union Government to acquire land and rights in or overland , which are vested in a state The coal bearing area (Acquisition and Development) Act , 1957. S.4 and 7 of the Act are Challenged as Ultra virus the Legislative Competence of the parliament and also for an injunction restraining the defendant from proceeding under the provisions of those sections.

2. (1)Whether Parliament has legislative competence to enact a law for compulsory acquisition by the Union of land and other properties vested in or owned by the State? (2)Whether State of West Bengal is a Sovereign authority? (3)Whether assuming that State of W.B is a Sovereign authority, Parliament is entitled to enact law for compulsory acquisition of its lands and properties? (4) Whether Act or any of its provisions are Ultravires the legislative competence of the parliament? (5) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get any relief? The issues before Supreme Court

3. (1)State sovereignty –Constitution being federal, the state share in the sovereignty , parliament cannot take away these State Rights. (2) Property which State got under Art .294(1) cannot be diverted for Union purposes. (3)Govt of India Act 1935, the property acquisition was envisaged through negotiation. (4) Absence of power expressly conferred such as is to be found in the Australian Constitution to legislate for acquisition of property of States indicates that it was not the intention of the Constitutional makers to confer that power upon the Union parliament. The contentions of the State

4. (5)If power be exercised by the Union to acquire state property under Entry 42 of Concurrent List, similar power may be exercised by the states in respect of such property and even to reacquire the property from the union. The power of under entry 42 will therefore never be effectively exercised. (6)It could not have been the intention of the constitution makers to confer authority upon parliament to legislate for acquiring property of states and thereby to make the rights of the state property owned by it more precarious. (7)There is no express provision in the constitution which empower Union to pass law in this area.

5. Findings of the Supreme Court 1. Indian Constitution is not true to any traditional pattern of Federation 2. 1935 Act was not create a federation 3. After independence Indian Union became sovereign not states 4. “A true federation form of Govt. envisages a compact among independent sovereign states agreeing to surrender part of their sovereign power in favour of a common national Govt. and retaining residue power”- our Constitution was not the result of such compact

6. 5. True Federation envisages for Supremacy of the Constitution, but our Constitution is not Supreme 6. Even though there is distribution of powers, States are not independent in many respect, limitations in Articles 248,249-253 7. Major taxes with Union, State need to depend Union for financial Assistance 8. Only federal feature- Supremacy of the Courts 9. No Sovereignty to States

7. 10. Art.294 contain no prohibition against transfer of State property 11. Absence of express provision- Similar feature in US and Canada 12. Claim of making State Law not possible as Art 31(3) requires President’s assent 13. No right for any compensation Suit Dismissed with Cost

8. Territory and Federal Implications The Questions which are relevant: Do the units of Federation have right to secede? Can units be modified, who has the power to do so? Is the Units also Consulted? Can Unit decline? Can name of the States be changed? What is the role of State in this? Can Union cede away part of a particular State to another Country?

9. Answer to these Questions are: Articles 1 to 4 Babulal Parate v State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC51 Advisory opinion of Supreme Court in Re Berubary Union AIR 1969 SC 845 Babulal Parate v State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC51 Validity of State Re- Organisation Act,1956 relating to re- organisation of State of Bombay was challanged on the ground of non- complaince of Art.3 S.8(1) created State of Bombay as against proposed bill

10. Appellant filed Writ under Art.226 Challenged the Formation of State of Bombay HC Dismissed the Writ, against this Appeal was filed before SC Re Berubary Union AIR 1960 SC 845 Agreement entered by Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan for resolving certain border disputes Berubari to Pakistan in exchange of Enclaves President referred the Questions Is any legislative action necessary for the implementation of the agreement relation to Berubari Union? If so, is a Law of Parliament relatable Art.3 sufficient or is an amendment of Constitution?