In Re: The Berubari Union v. Unknown [AIR 1960 SC 845, 1960 3 SCR 250]

Introduction:

A significant case in the Indian Constitution’s history was the Berubari Case of 1960. Regarding the Nehru-Noon Agreement, which was signed by the prime ministers of India and Pakistan, the President conferred with the Supreme Court of India in the Berubari Union Case. The disputed area of Berubari, which lay on the boundary between Pakistan and India, was at issue in this case. The point of contention was that Pakistan was not to receive any Berubari territory from the West Bengal State Government.

Facts:

The following is a summary of the Berubari Union case’s facts:
The two-nation theory was used to justify the partition of India into Pakistan and India after the Independence Act, also known as the Mountbatten Plan, was passed in 1947.

But the problem was figuring out which precise areas would be given to Pakistan and India. As a result, the exact map delineating these borders was not finalized. Surveyor Sir Cyril John Radcliffe was assigned to finish this assignment in five weeks.

Throughout this process, Radcliffe experienced a great deal of 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 areas with a majority Hindu population.
Unintentionally left off of Radcliffe’s written map and given to India is Berubari, a region located in the Jalpaiguri district of West Bengal. India and Pakistan are at odds because Pakistan took advantage of the chance to claim Berubari.

In 1958, the Nehru-Noon Agreement was put out as a fix for this issue. According to this deal, Pakistan and India will split the Berubari territory equally. To resolve the issue, the President did, however, request the Supreme Court’s advice under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution.

Procedural History:

The boundary line between India and the newly formed nation of Pakistan was established by British Cyril Radcliffe during the 1947 Indian partition; this line became known as the “Radcliffe line.” By giving some “thanas” to both Pakistan and India, Radcliffe partitioned the Jalpaiguri District. Following its allocation to India, Berubari Union No. 12 became a part of West Bengal, an independent state in India. Pakistan began to make claims to Berubari in the early 1950s. Between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan, the Nehru-Noon Agreement was ratified in 1958. Prime Minister Nehru gave Pakistan’s Berubari village his assent through this arrangement. The West Bengal Chief Minister, however, completely disagreed with the government’s decision. He thought Berubari was a significant component of West Bengal.

Important Provisions:

1. Indians are allowed to acquire territory abroad, according to Article 1(3)(c) of the Indian Constitution.
2. The Parliament of India is empowered by Article 3 of the Constitution to change, enlarge, or reduce a state’s borders. All states’ names are subject to revision by the parliament.
3. As stipulated in Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, the parliament has the authority to modify both the Constitution and its procedures.

Issues:

1. Whether the Preamble is the part of Constitution or not?
2. Does the Berubari Union accord require any kind of legislative action to be implemented?
3. If so, can this be accomplished by a Parliamentary law under Article 3 of the Constitution, or is it also necessary to amend the Constitution in line with Article 368 of the Constitution?
4. Is it possible for the agreement on the exchange of Enclaves to bor noe carried out through a Parliament statute under Article 3 of the Constitution, or is there another, more important need to amend the Constitution according to Article 368 of the Constitution?

Judgment of Court:

It’s crucial to remember that Article 3 does not, as written, specifically address Union territory when determining whether or not a session may be started under that provision. Therefore, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not covered by Article 3(b), (c), (d), or (e), even if they are mentioned in the last paragraph of Article 3(a).

Stated a certain way, the court decided that the Berubari Case states that laws about Article 3 cannot be used to implement proposals for changes to the boundaries or names of Union territory, nor can they be used to expand or contract their area. Interpreting Article 3(c) calls for the application of this viewpoint.

The problem of any State’s area shrinking is expressly addressed in Article 3(c).

Analysis:

This case is essential to comprehending the many important facets of the Constitution. It explored whether giving up a piece of Indian territory to a foreign country is permissible under the Constitution. It also looked at the Preamble’s nature and how it relates to the main body of
the Constitution.

In this case, the question was whether Parliament’s right to shrink a state’s borders also included the right to cede Indian territory to another country. The President brought the matter before the Supreme Court.

Is any legislative measure essential for the enforcement of the agreement regarding Berubari Union;

Is legislation of the Parliament in conformance with Article 3 enough or is an amendment of the Constitution as per Article 368 essential?

The Central Government said that since the agreement’s purpose was just to establish the true border, it could be enforced without relinquishing any Indian territory by using the Union’s executive authority. The Court rejected this claim, ruling that the agreement was overriding parliamentary action because it involved the transfer of the land specified in the First Schedule. The transfer of Indian territory to another nation is not covered by Parliament’s power under Article 3 to reduce a state’s territory. Consequently, the Court determined that the Parliament lacked the jurisdiction to enact a statute to implement the disputed agreement under Article 3(c). Article 368 of the Constitution provides for the enforcement of the in-question agreement. The Court determined that Article 3 pertains to the internal reorganization of the states of India after interpreting the scheme of the article. India still includes the territory that was decreased under Article 3. A territory transfer to another country is not covered by this clause. Therefore, an agreement on the transfer of territory to another country cannot be put into effect by simply passing legislation under Article 3. A constitutional amendment might accomplish this. This is very important.

Conclusion:

The implementation of the agreement between India and Pakistan, which required India to relinquish half of the Berubari Union and exchange the old Cooch-Behar enclaves, was the subject of the President’s request for assistance from the Supreme Court. In this instance, the primary question was whether an Article 368 constitutional amendment was required or if a statute enacted under Article 3 would be adequate to enforce the agreement. According to the Apex Court, the accord could not be implemented without a constitutional modification.

Some constitutional issues were at issue in this case. The Court first believed that a change to both the First Schedule and Article 1 would be necessary to enforce this agreement.

In this case, the Apex Court also talked about the Preamble’s content. It was stated that the Preamble could not be used as a benchmark for any substantive authority because it was not a part of the Constitution. Nonetheless, the Court emphasized its importance by stating that it is “a key to open the makers’ mind” and reveals the overarching goal for which they included many provisions in the Constitution. In order for India to give Pakistan ownership of a portion of the Berubari Union and for the exchange of former Cooch-Behar enclaves, the two countries entered into an agreement in 1958 to resolve specific border disputes. There were large-scale demonstrations against the transfer of Indian territory to Pakistan as the Central Government attempted to implement the deal. The President proceeded to ask the Supreme Court three questions. The Court was asked these principal questions.