Babulal Parate V. The State of Bombay and Another 1960 (Case Summary)

The case addresses the formation of a composite State of Bombay through the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which deviated from the original clause of the State Reorganisation Bill to divide Bombay into three separate units. This pivotal case raises critical questions about adherence to Article 3 of the Indian Constitution and the balance between parliamentary authority and the rights of state legislatures in the context of state reorganization.

Facts of Babulal Parate V. The State of Bombay

1. On 18 April 1956, the States Reorganisation Bill was introduced in the House of the People (Lok Sabha) in the Indian Parliament.
2. The clause 8, 9, 10 of the bill proposed that the State of Bombay be divided into three units: (1) a Union territory of Bombay; (2) a State of Maharashtra; and (3) a State of Gujarat.
3. As Per the procedure established in Article 3 of the Indian Constitution, the bill was introduced on the recommendation of the President of India, as required by proviso of the Article 3 of the Indian Constitution and referred to the legislature of Bombay for expressing its view and to the Joint Select Committee of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
4. The Joint Select Committee made its report. Subsequently, Parliament amended some of the clauses and passed the Bill which came to be known as the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The Act by section 8(1) constituted a composite State of Bombay instead of the three separate units as originally proposed in  the Bill.
5. The appellant, Babulal Parate filed a petition under Article 226 in the Bombay High Court, arguing that the creation of the composite State of Bombay violated the proviso of Article 3 of the Constitution.
6. He submitted that while the Bombay Legislature had been consulted on the original bill, which proposed the bifurcation of the state into three distinct entities, the Legislature was not given the opportunity to express its views on the amended bill, which introduced the formation of a single composite state.
7. Parate asserted that Article 3 required the amended bill to be referred back to the Legislature for its input to ensure the Act’s constitutional validity.
8. On 14 September 1956, the High Court of Bombay dismissed Parate’s petition, finding that the formation of the composite state did not violate Article 3.
9. Parate appealed the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court of India.

Issues framed

1. Whether the formation of the composite State of Bombay, without specifically obtaining the Bombay Legislature’s views on the final bill, violated Article 3 of the Constitution?

Judgment of Babulal Parate V. The State of Bombay

Subordinate Court Judgment

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the formation did not violate Article 3 of the Constitution.

Judgment of the Present Case

The Supreme Court analyzed Articles 3 of the Indian Constitution, along with the principles of germane amendments and parliamentary supremacy.

The Supreme Court ruled that the formation of a composite State of Bombay, instead of the three separate units initially proposed, did not contravene Article 3 of the Constitution. The Court clarified that the proviso to Article 3 requires only an initial referral of the bill to the state legislature for its views, not repeated referrals for subsequent amendments, even if substantial. It emphasized that Parliament holds the authority to amend bills as part of its legislative process, and requiring fresh referrals for every change would disrupt parliamentary proceedings. 

The Court also applied the principle that amendments must be germane to the original proposal, finding that the creation of a composite state aligned with the original bill’s intent of reorganizing states and was discussed during debates. Thus, the amendment creating a single Bombay State was held valid, and no fresh referral to the Bombay Legislature was required.

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal, holding that the formation of the composite State of Bombay did not violate Article 3 of the Constitution. The Court emphasised that proviso of Article 3, mandating presidential referral to state legislatures, applies only to the initial bill, not to subsequent amendments. They deemed the formation of the composite Bombay State a “germane amendment,” remaining relevant to the bill’s core subject of state reorganisation. Therefore, taking the State’s view on the subsequent amendments was not required.

Click here to read the Judgment