Reorganisation of statesSimple majoritySupreme Court of India

Babulal Parate v State of Bombay

AIR 1960 Supreme Court 5119601 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Parliament enacted a law under Art.3 altering state boundaries and reorganising certain areas, requiring consequential changes to the First Schedule. The validity was challenged on the ground that any change affecting constitutional Schedules amounts to a constitutional amendment requiring Art.368 special procedure.
Issue
Whether a law under Art.3 (formation of new states, alteration of boundaries) which consequentially amends the Schedules under Art.4 must follow the Art.368 amending procedure, or can be enacted as ordinary legislation.
Held
Laws under Art.3 and consequential provisions under Art.4 are not amendments to the Constitution within Art.368.
Principle
Parliament's power under Article 3 to form new states or alter boundaries does not require a special majority under Art.368; such laws are passed by simple majority and are not 'amendments' to the Constitution.
Cite this

Facts

  • Parliament enacted a law under Art.3 altering state boundaries and reorganising certain areas, requiring consequential changes to the First Schedule
  • The validity was challenged on the ground that any change affecting constitutional Schedules amounts to a constitutional amendment requiring Art.368 special procedure

Issue

  1. Whether a law under Art.3 (formation of new states, alteration of boundaries) which consequentially amends the Schedules under Art.4 must follow the Art.368 amending procedure, or can be enacted as ordinary legislation.

Held

  • Laws under Art.3 and consequential provisions under Art.4 are not amendments to the Constitution within Art.368
  • Art.4 expressly provides that such laws shall not be deemed an amendment for Art.368 purposes
  • Such legislation can be passed by simple majority, following the ordinary legislative process

Ratio decidendi

Legislation under Art.3, reorganising states or altering boundaries, together with consequential amendments to Schedules under Art.4, is expressly carved out from the definition of a constitutional "amendment" under Art.368, and can be enacted through ordinary legislative process by simple majority.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Part A: Distinguishes Art.3/4 legislation (state reorganisation) from Art.368 amendments.
  • Part B: Pair with In Re: Berubari Union (1960) for contrast: cession of territory to a foreign state DOES require Art.368 amendment, while internal reorganisation under Art.3 does not.
  • Key line: "Art.4 explicitly removes Art.3 legislation from the ambit of 'amendment' under Art.368."

Cite this

Citation

Babulal Parate v State of Bombay AIR 1960 Supreme Court 51

Reported: AIR 1960 SC 51. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.