The story of Berubari Union
We know that India and Pakistan boundary was fixed by Sir Radcliffe and the line was called Radcliffe Line. However, some disputes arose because of the erroneous depiction of the maps by the Radcliffe Award. One of such disputes was Berubari Dispute. This dispute rose due to omission in the written text. Radcliffe had divided the district of Jalpaigudi between India and Pakistan by awarding some thanas to one country and others to the other country. The boundary line was determined on the basis of the boundaries of the thanas. In describing this boundary, Radcliffe omitted to mention one Thana. Berubari Union No. 12 lies within Jalpaigudi thana which was awarded to India. However, the omission of the Thana Boda and the erroneous depiction on the map enabled Pakistan to claim that a part of Berubari belonged to it.
This dispute was resolved by Nehru-Noon Agreement of 1958, whereby half of Berubari Union No. 12 was to be given to Pakistan and the other half adjacent to India was to be retained by India. In addition, four Cooch Behar enclaves contiguous of this part would also have gone to Pakistan.
Now the question arose, regarding the power of the parliament to transfer the territory of Berubari to Pakistan.
The detailed examination of article 3 was done by the Supreme Court on a reference made by the President in 1960. The Supreme Court held that the parliament of India is not competent to make a law under article 3 for the implementation of the Nehru-Noon Agreement. The conflict in judiciary and legislature was obvious.
This was followed by an amendment of the Constitution by parliament using power of Article 368. The result was the Constitution (9th Amendment ) Act 1960. The object of this amendment reads:
Agreements between the Governments of India and Pakistan dated 10th September, 1958, 23rd October, 1959, and 11th January, 1960, settled certain boundary disputes between the Governments of India and Pakistan relating to the borders of the States of Assam, Punjab and West Bengal, and the Union territory of Tripura.
According to these agreements, certain territories are to be transferred to Pakistan after demarcation. In the light of the Advisory Opinion of the Supreme Court in Special Reference No. 1 of 1959, it is proposed to amend the First Schedule to the Constitution under a law relatable to article 368 thereof to give effect to the transfer of theses territories.
What we conclude here is that by itself, the Parliament of India is not competent enough to cede a territory. However, to make such an agreement effective, Parliament would need to enact an amendment of the Constitution.
Related Posts
18 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Shrinidhi t r
February 3, 2015 at 8:23 pmGood Information for those who are the aspirants for taking civil services examinations, while reading Preamble as part of the constitution there mentioned Berubari union case 1960, Kesavananda bharathi case 1973, so here they explained the story of this case more precisely and eadily.
shivanand
March 4, 2015 at 8:09 pmIt’s a good information. & Complete. Especially in easy words it is explained.
rahul saureshranjan
March 20, 2015 at 7:28 amAppreciation for this kind of Informative stuff
surabhi
May 3, 2015 at 7:47 pmthank you for the complete information :)
ashok majhi
June 23, 2015 at 11:13 amThank u sir.
sushant singh
August 5, 2015 at 2:39 amwhat you guys missed was the fact that the government needs constitutional amendment only in case of cessation of territory, in case of acquisition of foreign land it can do so by a simple act of parliament. thank you
manpreet
September 10, 2015 at 12:21 pmthanks for this very important
information
Amit Sharma
June 7, 2017 at 3:11 pmin 1969 the SC ruled that in settlement of boundary dispute between india and any other country does not require a constitutional amendment.
Monika
July 1, 2019 at 12:29 pmYes but this particular says that parliament need amendment while ceding a territory to another country.
MEGHA.M.SOMANNAVAR
September 25, 2017 at 7:54 pmThank u for a detailed information …..we law students need these kind of easy to understand articles on important cases
aayush gupta
December 21, 2017 at 9:28 amVery good article…simple language easily understood…thank you writer for this…plz continue to share such gud informations….
SUSHIL
February 1, 2018 at 5:32 amGRT
Adithya
May 21, 2018 at 9:40 pmShould have also mentioned that it is East-Pakistan aka Bangladesh before independence.
Thanks for the simple language!
Manvendra
April 26, 2020 at 7:22 pmif you are reading this believe me your are a serious aspirant and you are reading the gems written by founder of this GKToday Mr. Suresh Soni!!! all the best to you.
dr palak patel
June 21, 2020 at 1:27 pmthank u for the explanation!
dr palak patel
June 21, 2020 at 1:31 pmthank u for this
Vishal
July 23, 2020 at 11:38 amThank you for the information. Simplified and accurate. Extremely helpful for Civil Services Aspirants.
Ayushi
January 3, 2021 at 4:20 pmThnx for giving this info … But I m not satisfied with this judgement. Firstly it was a agreement includes exchange of enclaves on the basis of enclaves w/o any consideration of territorial loss or gain but i think it was not needed to excahnge afterall it’s a democratic country people of berubari didn’t want to go to Pakistan as they gave the evidence by cutting their thumb and secondly we can see it like – a territory was divided b/w two countries so what was the problem afteall the part which was already existed in Pakistan could be remain there n the part which was left in Indi can remain there …we should need to raise this question … afterall yha pr exchange hi toh horha tha toh jo territory jisk ps tha phle se wo territory apne apne ps rkha jaaskta tha and India kuki sovereign country h so we needed to violate this