Case Name: Re Berubari Union and Ors. V. Unknown
Date of Judgement: 14 March,1960
Equivalent Citation: AIR1960SC845, [1960]3SCR250
Bench: B.P. Sinha, A.K. Sarkar, J.C. Shah, K.C. Das Gupta, K. Subba Rao, M. Hidayatullah, P.B. Gajendragadkar, S.K. Das
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:
In The Berubari Union case the issue involves a legal dispute between the two nations- India and Pakistan questioning the rightful ownership of the Berubari region. Formerly and originally a part of Rajshahi Division, Berubari is a small town extending to 22.19 square kilometres in the Jalpaiguri District situated in West Bengal. The case concerned whether the cession of Berubari to Pakistan, in accordance with the “award” of a boundary commission, could be carried out by parliamentary legislation or if Article 368 of the Indian Constitution needed to be amended.
Sir Radcliff’s boundary delineation is the source of the dispute between India and Pakistan over Berubari. Following the ratification of the constitution, West Bengal annexed Berubari, which Sir Radcliff had awarded to India.
Pakistan objected to the acquire of Berubari, arguing that it belonged to East Bengal, which at the time was a part of Pakistan. Due to boundary disputes between Pakistan and India as a result, the Indo-Pakistan Boundary Disputes Tribunal was established in 1948. Over the following two years, though, no agreement was reached. Pakistan brought up the Berubari issue another time in 1950. The conflict went on for until 1958, when the two nations’ prime ministers made the decision to divide the Berubari Union in half in the horizontal direction.
FACTS OF THE BERUBARI UNION CASE:
Following the 1947 Independence Act, also referred to as the Mountbatten Plan, the partition of India into India and Pakistan was decided upon. The Two-Nations theory served as the foundation for this choice. The issue at hand concerned the territories that would be allocated to Pakistan and India. A commission headed by Sir Cyril Radcliffe was established with the objective of allocating the state of Bihar. Within the next five weeks, the task of dividing the region between India and Pakistan fell to Sir Cyril John Radcliffe.
Throughout this process, Radcliffe himself experienced considerable confusion. Ultimately, he divided the areas according to the majority population that lived there by applying the principle of majoritarianism. For example, Pakistan was given the regions with a majority Muslim population, and India was given the regions with a majority Hindu population.
In Radcliffe’s written map, Berubari of West Bengal was erratically left off and given to India. India and Pakistan ended up involved in a dispute after Pakistan seized the chance to claim Berubari.
The Nehru-Noon Agreement was proposed in 1958 as a solution to this problem. This agreement called for an equal division of the Berubari region between Pakistan and India. To resolve the issue, the President did, however, request the Supreme Court’s advice in accordance with Article 143 of the Indian Constitution.
ISSUES RAISED:
- To what extent does the implementation of the agreement pertaining to the Berubari Union require the legislative action?
- If that was the case does Article 3 of the Indian Constitution address the purpose adequately, or does Article 368 of the Indian Constitution require further action to address the matter in order to fulfil the purpose?
- Will article 3 of the Indian Constitution be adequate for implementing the Enclave exchange between the territories, or will an amendment in line with article 368 of the Indian Constitution be required to accomplish the goal?
RELATED PROVISIONS:
- Article 1 (3) (c): The territory of India shall comprise- such other territories as may be acquired.
- Article 3: Formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states.
- Article 368: Power of Parliament to amend Constitution and Procedure thereof.
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the area of Berubari was part of Indian territory and that it was unconstitutional to transfer it to East Pakistan. The reading of Article 3 of the Indian Constitution, a provision that grants the Indian Parliament the authority to change state borders, served as the foundation for the court’s ruling.
The Indian Parliament possessed the authority to relocate Berubari to West Bengal, as the court determined that the authority to alter state borders encompasses the ability to shift territory between states. Nonetheless, the court emphasized how important it is to protect citizens’ rights in border areas. In order to achieve this, the court decided that consent must be obtained before any land transfer that impacts someone’s rights can take place.
The applicable Articles were interpreted by the Supreme Court. For the purpose of putting the Agreement in question into effect, the Court found that Article 3 was ineffective on itself. It went on to say that a statute required for execution under Article 368 is competent. Furthermore, a statute of Parliament would be necessary in relation to both Article 3 and 368 if a change were to be made to Article 3 first, subsequently followed by the implementation of the Amended Article for the Agreement’s execution.
The Indian Constitution was affected by the Berubari Case in a number of other ways as well. It was established that although the Indian Constitution’s preamble is not a part of the document itself, it serves as a crucial guide for interpreting it. It also made the connection between the Indian Parliament and the Supreme Court more clear.
ANALYSIS:
The historic ruling in Re, Berubari, Union represented the legislature’s rights under Article 368 of the Indian Constitution and had a significant influence on the country’s judiciary. The case brought a number of questions before the Honorable Supreme Court of India, including whether or not a territory can be ceded from India, which article of the constitution permits it, and what other avenues exist for a parliament to use in order to cede land to another nation if it so chooses. These questions were addressed in a way that made it simpler for the parliament to decide on the subject at hand.
The Supreme Court’s decision and recommendation are unmistakably clear because they provided the parliament with a more comprehensive and understandable concept when making the decision regarding which the advice was requested. Therefore, the parliament decided to give Pakistan a portion of the territory and give India a portion of Pakistani territory.
CONCLUSION:
On occasion , the legislature will consult legal counsel regarding the constitutionality and legality of several of its own initiatives. I believe that the Supreme Court should try to interpret the laws abiding to the maxim- “ut res magis valeat quam pereat” i.e. to interpret the laws so that they do not diminish the intention of the Indian Constitution, nor do they crumble in the eyes of other nations, damaging India’s reputation as the country with the most elaborate Constitution in the world.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
