EDWINGSON BAREH V. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS INSC 265; AIR 1966 SC 1220; 1966 SCR 770

From Advocatespedia

NAME OF THE CASE: Edwingson Bareh vs State Of Assam And Others

FACTS: The validity of the notification is limited to notification No. 1 and Notification No. 4. The validity of the notification is On November 23 the Indian Governor of Assam issued TD/R/50/64, TAD/R/50/64. The central issue is the case in this case in 1964. The petitioner who is the CM is Edwingson Bareh who opposes the notification on several grounds. The case mainly deals with the interpretation of the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, Paragraphs 1, 14, and 20, which are related to the formation and administration of the autonomous districts and regions in the tribal areas of Assam.

ISSUE: 1. Whether Notification No. TAD/R/50/64 is valid and constitutional. 2. The scope of the powers of the Governor under the Sixth Schedule, especially in respect of the formation of autonomous districts. 3. Whether the Governor should take into consideration the recommendations of the Commission appointed under Paragraph 14 before issuing the notification. 4. Whether the notification affects the existing autonomous districts and whether legislative action is necessary for its validity.

HOLDING: Writ issued in favor of the petitioners. Notification quashed. Costs granted to the petitioners. The petitions were dismissed with the majority opinion against granting a stay order.

RATIONALE: The Court held that the powers of the Governor under the Sixth Schedule should be exercised independently and cannot be influenced by the Council of Ministers. The notification was held to be invalid for it does not result from the Governor's independent action but from the instance of the executive government. He had failed to consider the mandatory recommendations of the Commission as a precondition to the issuance of such a notification. The court decided that such a communication proposing the bifurcation of an existing autonomous district into two was outside the Governor's powers under the Sixth Schedule. The court held that any amendment to the Sixth Schedule must be enacted by Parliament and until such action occurs the notification lacks legal effect.

[1]


  1. [2] Edwingson Bareh vs State Of Assam And Others, AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 1220




  • [3] #cite_note-1
  • [4] #cite_ref-1 ↑



  1. [5] #cite_note-1
  2. [6] #cite_note-2
  3. [7] #cite_ref-1 ↑
  4. [8] #cite_ref-2 ↑


  1. [9] #cite_note-1
  2. [10] #cite_note-2
  3. [11] #cite_note-3
  4. [12] #cite_note-4
  5. [13] #cite_ref-1 ↑
  6. [14] #cite_ref-2 ↑
  7. [15] #cite_ref-3 ↑
  8. [16] #cite_ref-4 ↑
  1. ↑ #cite_note-1 [1]
  2. ↑ #cite_note-2 [2]
  3. ↑ #cite_note-3 [3]
  4. ↑ #cite_note-4 [4]
  5. ↑ #cite_note-5 [5]
  6. ↑ #cite_note-6 [6]
  7. ↑ #cite_note-7 [7]
  8. ↑ #cite_note-8 [8]
  9. ↑ #cite_ref-1 ↑
  10. ↑ #cite_ref-2 ↑
  11. ↑ #cite_ref-3 ↑
  12. ↑ #cite_ref-4 ↑
  13. ↑ #cite_ref-5 ↑
  14. ↑ #cite_ref-6 ↑
  15. ↑ #cite_ref-7 ↑
  16. ↑ #cite_ref-8 ↑
Retrieved from "https://advocatepedia.com/index.php?title=EDWINGSON_BAREH_V._STATE_OF_ASSAM_AND_ORS_INSC_265;_AIR_1966_SC_1220;_1966_SCR_770&oldid=409609"