ISSUE:
Whether the inclusion of the district of Haridwar in the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 violated the mandatory requirements of the proviso appended to Article 3 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the consultation process with the State Legislature of Uttar Pradesh regarding the reorganization bill, particularly concerning the inclusion of Haridwar, was conducted in accordance with constitutional provisions?
RULE:
Doctrine of Legislative Competence: The Court evaluated the state legislature’s authority to enact certain provisions, ensuring they fall within its jurisdictional powers under constitutional frameworks.
Parliamentary Supremacy in State Reorganisation: The Court upheld that the power to alter state boundaries or create new states lies primarily with Parliament. Although the views of the affected State Legislature are required, these views are not binding on Parliament.
Doctrine of Procedural Compliance: The Court applied this doctrine by affirming that as long as the prescribed procedure (such as consulting the State Legislature) has been followed, Parliament is free to proceed with reorganisation, even if the State Legislature’s views differ.