In which case it was held that the "acquisition of a foreign territory does not fall within Article $1$ . It is governed by International Law"?

Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commissioner, Pondicherry, AIR

1962

797

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Jose De Costa v. Bascora, AIR

1975

1843

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR

1955

504

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

None of the above

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is B Jose De Costa v. Bascora, AIR $1975$ SC $1843$
Article 1 of the Constitution of India declares that India that is Bharat shall be the Union of States. Article 3 states that Parliament of India can form new states by separation of territory from any state. The Supreme court in the present case held that acquisition of foreign territory is not governed by Article 1 but is regulated bu the rules of International law.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

Q8. Which of the following statements are correct?

1. India is a ‘Union of States’ implies the indestructible nature of its unity.

2. Acquisition of a foreign territory falls within the purview of Article 1.

3. Exclusive Economic Zone extends up to 200 km into the sea.

332 m/s

V^{2 +} < C r^{2 +} < M n^{2} < F e^{2 +}

N i^{2 +} < C o^{2 +} < F e^{2 +} < M n^{2 +}

C o^{3 +} < F e^{3 +} < C r^{3 +} < S c^{3 +}

S c < T i < C r < M n

Join BYJU'S Learning Program