Introduction

• This is one of the important cases related to Article 3 of the Indian Constitution which deals with the Formation of new States and the alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States and, the power to cession of territory.
• This case pertains to the transfer of the Teen Bigha area to Bangladesh through a perpetual lease deed. It was determined that a constitutional amendment was not necessary for this transfer, as it did not entail the cessation of Indian territory.

Facts

• As 9^th Constitutional Amendment Act was not enforced, the enclaves of Dahagram and Angarpota remained part of East Pakistan. But after 1971 war, East Pakistan was separated from Pakistan, and it became a new nation with the name of Bangladesh.
• Subsequently, an agreement was made between the Government of India and Bangladesh in 1974 and 1982 which provided that the two enclaves of Dahagram and Angarpota would not be exchanged and would remain part of Bangladesh.
• The 1974 agreement, in conjunction with the 1982 Agreement, granted the Government of Bangladesh the privilege of utilizing the Indian territory known as TEEN BIGHA as outlined in the terms of this agreement.
• According to the 1974 agreement, India agreed to grant Bangladesh a perpetual lease for the Teen Bigha area, connecting Dahagram and Panbari Monja of Bangladesh.
• Additionally, the 1982 agreement clarified that due to the "lease in perpetuity," Bangladesh would enjoy uninterrupted possession and utilization of the leased area. However, it was explicitly stated that sovereignty over the designated area would remain with India, and Bangladesh was granted only restricted rights.

Issue Involved

• Whether agreements formed in 1974 and 1982 between Governments of Bangladesh and India in the absence of any legislative action confer it the power was constitutionally valid?
• Whether the agreement symbolizes cession of territory?

Decision

• Supreme Court held that implementation of the agreements with Bangladesh did not involve cession of Indian territory.
• The court also said that agreements did not amount to lease or surrender of sovereignty over the said area.
• The Court further held that the concessions given to Bangladesh over the said area might amount to servitudes suffered by India in its territory as known in international law.
• In view of the facts of the matter there being neither cession of territory nor a lease in perpetuity, the Agreement of 1974 read with the Agreement of 1984 could be implemented by mere executive action and there is no need of any Parliamentary law or amendment of the Constitution.

Conclusion

• The court held the agreement valid and said that “India would still retain its sovereignty, ownership and control of Teen Bigha”.

Notes

• Article 3 of the Constitution: Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States: Parliament may by law -

(a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more St ates or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;

(b) increase the area of any State;

(c) diminish the area of any State;

(d) alter the boundaries of any State.