N. Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commissioner, Pondicherry

Question before the Court: Was Pondicherry legally inside India’s territory in 1963? If not, who could exercise what powers there? The Supreme Court clarified that Pondicherry was under India’s administrative control, but it was not yet part of India’s territory under Article 1(3). Control and sovereignty are different. A valid treaty and ratification are required for a transfer of territory.

1. Was Pondicherry included in the “territory of India” under Article 1(3)?
2. What was the extent of jurisdiction of the Union Government and the French Government over Pondicherry?
3. Is transfer of administrative control the same as transfer of territory?

• Article 136: Supreme Court’s discretionary special leave to appeal from any court/tribunal in the territory of India.
• Article 142(1): Power to do complete justice; enforceable throughout the territory of India—this carries a territorial limit.
• Article 1(3): “Territory of India” includes States, Union Territories in the First Schedule, and other acquired territories.

Held: Pondicherry was not comprised within the “territory of India” under Article 1(3) at the relevant time. The Union Government exercised full administrative control; the French Government did not exercise de facto control. But administrative control did not amount to transfer of territory. Without treaty ratification, territory cannot legally transfer.

• “Territory of India” under Article 1(3) requires formal acquisition and inclusion, not only executive control.
• Articles 136 and 142 operate within India’s territory; their reach depends on territorial status.
• Transfer of administration ≠ transfer of sovereignty.

This case separates control from sovereignty. For exam answers and practice, cite it when discussing Article 1(3), international cessions, or when judging the effect of administrative arrangements before formal annexation.

• Administrative takeover is not enough to change territorial status.
• Formal legal steps (treaty + ratification) are essential for transfer of territory.
• Articles 136 and 142 are bounded by territorial limits.

Mnemonic: “ACT, not ACTing” — Administration, Control, needs Treaty. Without treaty, you’re only acting, not acquiring.

1. Spot the difference: control vs territory.
2. Check Article 1(3) and treaty status.
3. Conclude jurisdiction of Articles 136/142 accordingly.

Issue: Was Pondicherry within India’s territory, and does administration equal transfer?

Rule: Articles 1(3), 136, 142(1).

Application: India had administrative control, but no ratified treaty showing completed transfer; therefore constitutional territorial clauses limited reach.

Conclusion: Pondicherry not yet part of India’s territory; administration ≠ territory transfer.

Administrative Control

Power to manage day-to-day affairs without full legal sovereignty.

Transfer of Territory

Formal legal cession or acquisition with treaty and ratification.

Article 1(3)

Defines what counts as the “territory of India”.