https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175176 The Court held that the formation of the composite State of Bombay did not violate Article 3 of the Constitution. It emphasized that the proviso to Article 3 requires the President to refer the proposal to the State Legislature for its views, but does not mandate a fresh reference for every amendment. The Court clarified that the term "State" in Article 3 refers to the geographical entity, not its people, and affirmed the validity of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent. en-us Fri, 28 Aug 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Feb 2025 13:24:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175176 The Court held that the formation of the composite State of Bombay did not violate Article 3 of the Constitution. It emphasized that the proviso to Article 3 requires the President to refer the proposal to the State Legislature for its views, but does not mandate a fresh reference for every amendment. The Court clarified that the term "State" in Article 3 refers to the geographical entity, not its people, and affirmed the validity of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Aug 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175176