The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, rejected a plea seeking to alter the boundaries of the states of Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana, as well as the relocation of the capital and high court of Haryana and Punjab. The bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, emphasized that courts lack the authority to change state boundaries, emphasizing that such matters fall exclusively within the domain of Parliament. This dismissal was grounded in the court’s observation that the plea was filed without adequate awareness of Article 3 of the Constitution, which grants the Parliament the authority to create new states and modify existing ones, including their boundaries and names.
Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, while heading the bench, clarified that the power to change state boundaries lies solely within Parliament’s exclusive domain, and the courts are not empowered to issue directives in this regard. The court highlighted the petitioner’s lack of understanding of Article 3 of the Constitution, which provides Parliament with the authority to establish new states and alter the boundaries or names of existing states.
Addressing the petitioner, JP Singh, a retired chief engineer who appeared in person, the court stated, “I cannot issue directions to the Parliament. We don’t recognize the boundaries of the states. We don’t get to choose where the high courts should be. It’s not our job or area of control
The court was addressing a public interest litigation filed by Singh, who sought to direct the Centre to merge Meerut Commissionerate, Sonepat, Faridabad, and Gurugram with Delhi, and Chandigarh with Haryana. Singh argued that Meerut’s proximity to Delhi justified its inclusion in the national capital region. Additionally, the plea aimed to relocate the capitals of Punjab and Haryana from Chandigarh to Jalandhar and Kurukshetra, respectively. Singh also urged the court to instruct the Union government to separate the common high court for Punjab and Haryana, advocating for distinct high courts in Jalandhar for Punjab and Kurukshetra for Haryana.
Singh’s argument rested on the difficulties faced by residents in accessing judicial and administrative services. He pointed out the challenges for people in Meerut traveling to Lucknow for such purposes and those in Amritsar facing difficulties in reaching Chandigarh.
In response to Singh’s regional focus on North India, the bench, which also included Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, suggested a broader approach. The bench remarked, “This is all that was left. Someone is now asking us to redraw the map of India. Why have you confined yourself only to North India? You should have gone into other parts of the country as well.”
Ultimately, the court concluded that the petition was drafted and filed without a proper understanding of Article 3 of the Constitution of India. Article 3, it emphasized, vests the power to alter state boundaries solely in the hands of Parliament. The order stated, The court thinks that the request was made without knowing about Article 3 of the Indian Constitution.
In essence, the court underlined the importance of adhering to constitutional provisions and clarified the limited role of the judiciary in matters reserved for parliamentary jurisdiction. The rejection of the plea underscored the need for petitioners to be well-versed in constitutional principles when challenging matters related to state boundaries and administrative structures.
