Trace Your Case

PRADEEP CHAUDHARY V. UNION OF INDIA

Pradeep Chaudhary v. Union of India (2009) 12 SCC 643

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.

FACTS:

  • The Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Bill, 2000 proposed the formation of the State of Uttaranchal, including the district of Haridwar.
  • The bill was sent to the UP-State Legislature for its views, as required by Article 3.
  • The State Legislature adopted a resolution to exclude Haridwar from the proposed state.
  • Due to the dissolution of the 12th Lok Sabha, the bill abated. Subsequently, a fresh bill, the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Bill, 2000, was introduced in the Lok Sabha.
  • The bill introduced in the Lok Sabha included the entire district of Haridwar, not just Haridwar city as originally specified.
  • The bill was passed by both houses of Parliament and received the President’s assent, thereby becoming the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000.
  • The petitioners, residents of the district of Haridwar, challenged the inclusion of Haridwar in the State of Uttaranchal under the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000.

HELD:

  • The inclusion of the entire district of Haridwar in the State of Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) is constitutional and does not violate the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution.
  • The consultation process with the State Legislature of Uttar Pradesh, including regarding the inclusion of Haridwar, was conducted in accordance with constitutional provisions.
  • While consultation with the State Legislature is mandatory, its recommendations are not binding on Parliament. It has the power to form new states and alter boundaries of states.
  • Once a bill is referred to the state legislature and its views are obtained, Parliament can make amendments without needing to refer the amended bill back to the state legislature.
  • As long as there is substantive compliance with the consultation requirement, the Parliament’s decision prevails.
  • Therefore, the Court found no merit in the petitioners’ application and dismissed it.