Case Analysis of West Bengal V. Union of India [1964] 1 SCR 371
Keywords:
Constitution of India, Federalism, Comparative Law, Schedule Vii, Article 246, List III, Subba Rao.Abstract
The researcher aims to study the usage of comparative law in the context of federalist principles in the instant case. Reliance has been placed primarily on secondary materials that include but are not limited to commentaries, journal articles, official proceedings, treatises and textbooks. The scope of the project is restricted to a doctrinal study of the usage of comparative law on constitutional federalism in the instant case and its consequences for the ultimate finding in the majority and the minority opinions. Considering the off-the-wall nature of the issue before the court and the socio-political background of the time, the research attempts to understand the judicial approach towards comparative constitutional law in the instant case. Further, the researcher endeavours to examine whether the judicial excursion into federalist principles of foreign constitutions of certain commonwealth countries with a richer tradition was a mere digression or a useful exercise in light of the final pronouncement.
References
1. Rudolf Dolzer, The Role of the Courts in the Preservat ion of Federalism: Some Remarks on the US and the German Experience, in Comparative Constitutional Law 72 (Mahendra Pal Singh, 2 nd ed., Eastern Book Company, 2011).
2. Ernst Benda, “Föderalismus in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts” in Probleme des Föderalismus 71- 2 (Tübingen 1985).
3. M. Tushnet, Federalism and Tradition of American Political Theory, 19 GA. L. REV. 981 (1985).
4. The Social Revolution and the First Amendment, in Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience 69 (Granville Austin, New Delhi: OUP, 1999).
5. [1964] 1 SCR 371.
6. The cases cited by Sinha C.J are States of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Leon Co. Phillips v. Guy F. Atkinson Company (1940) 313 U.S. 508: 85 L. ed. 1487, United States v. Darby 312 U.S. 124, Kohl v. United States (1876) 91 U.S. 449 etc.
7. Attorney-General for British Columbia v. Canadian Pacific Railway [1906] A.C. 204.
8. Jagdish Swarup, Constitution of India § 6 at 2900 (L.M. Singhvi ed., 3rd ed., 2013).
9. Federalism in India, in Constitutional Law of India 283 (H.M. Seervai, 4th ed., 1997)
10. C. Raj Kumar, State Sovereignty and Regional Autonomy in India: Human Rights and Governance Perspectives 102 AM. SOC'Y INT'L L. PROC. 121 (2008).
11. Jagat Narain, Constitutional Changes in India- An Enquiry into the Working of the Constitution, 17 INT'L & COMP. L.Q. 878- 907 (Oct 1968).
12. Subba Rao’s dissent
13. W.H. MORRIS-JONES, THE GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF INDIA 69 (1964).
14. Federal Government page 1.
15. Seervai page 286.
16. Federal Government page 19.
17. Federal Government page 17-20.
18. Seervai page 297.
19. Seervai page 293.
20. Federal Government page 27. JCLJ (2019) 8-12 © Law Journals 2019. All Rights Reserved Page 12
21. K.C. Wheare, Federal Government 20 (4 th ed., London: OUP, 1963).
22. Granville Austin, The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation 86 London: OUP, 1966).
23. G. Sawer, Modern Federalism (1969) Cite this Article Lakshana R. V. Union of India [1964] 1 SCR 371 . Jurisprudence. 2019; 2(1): 8-12p
