jbp123/hello · Datasets at Hugging Face

instruction stringlengths 1 84	input stringlengths 1 85	output stringlengths 1 83
(a) Atheistic State: The state is anti-religion and hence,	condemns all religions.	(b) Theocratic State: The state is pro-religion and
hence, declares one particular religion as the state	religion, as for example, Bangladesh, Burma, Sri	Lanka, Pakistan, and so on.
religion as the state religion, as for example, USA	and India.	G.S. Pande, Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad
Law Agency, eighth edition, 2002, P. 222.	10. The then Union Law Minister, H.R. Gokhale defined this	concept as: ‘There will be freedom, liberty of faith and
worship, whatever religion you belong to. The State will	not have anything to do, as a state, with any religion	excepting to treat every religion equally, but the State
will not have any foundation of religion’. Similarly, P.B.	Gajendragadkar, a former Chief Justice of India, defined	secularism as in the Indian Constitution in the following
way: ‘The State does not owe loyalty to any particular	religion as such: it is not irreligious or anti-religious; it	gives equal freedom to all religions’.
11. The term ‘democracy’ is derived from two Greek words,	namely, Demos and Kratia meaning ‘People’ and ‘rule’	respectively.
12. Referendum is a procedure whereby a proposed	legislation is referred to the electorate for settlement by	their direct votes.
Initiative is a method by means of which the people can	propose a bill to the legislature for enactment.	Recall is a method by means of which the voters can
remove a representative or an officer before the expiry	of his term, when he fails to discharge his duties	properly.
Plebiscite is a method of obtaining the opinion India’s of	people on any issue of public importance. It is generally	used to solve the territorial disputes.
12a. B. Shiva Rao, The Framing of India’s Constitution:	Select Documents, Volume IV, P. 944.	13. He said that the Preamble of the Indian Constitution
states ‘in a brief and pithy form the argument of much of	the book; and it may accordingly serve as a key-note’.	14. He wrote: ‘I am all the more moved to quote it because I
political tradition which we in the west call western, but	which is now something more than the western’.	15. M Hidayatullah, Democracy in India and the Judicial
Process, p. 51.	16. Reference by the President of India under Article 143 of	the Constitution on the implementation of the Indo-
Pakistan agreement relating to Berubari union and	exchange of enclaves (1960).	17. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
18. LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research	Centre (1995).	19. ‘Constituent Assembly Debates’, Volume 10, P. 450–
456.	20. The Court observed, ‘The edifice of our Constitution is	based upon the basic elements mentioned in the
Preamble. If any of these elements are removed, the	structure will not survive and it will not be the same	Constitution or it cannot maintain its identity. An
amending power cannot be interpreted so as to confer	power on the Parliament to take away any of these	fundamental and basic characteristics of the polity’.
5 Union and its Territory	A	rticles 1 to 4 under Part-I of the Constitution deal with the
UNION OF STATES	Article 1 describes India, that is, Bharat as a ‘Union of States’	rather than a ‘Federation of States’. This provision deals with two
things: one, name of the country; and two, type of polity.	There was no unanimity in the Constituent Assembly with	regard to the name of the country. Some members suggested the
traditional name (Bharat), while other advocated the modern	name (India). Hence, the Constituent Assembly had to adopt a	mix of both (‘India, that is, Bharat’)
Secondly, the country is described as ‘Union’ although its	Constitution is federal in structure. According to Dr. B.R.	Ambedkar, the phrase ‘Union of States’ has been preferred to
‘Federation of States’ for two reasons: one, the Indian Federation	is not the result of an agreement among the states like the	American Federation; and two, the states have no right to secede
from the federation. The federation is an Union because it is	indestructible. The country is an integral whole and divided into	different states only for the convenience of administration1 .
According to Article 1, the territory of India can be classified into	three categories:	1. Territories of the states
2. Union territories	3. Territories that may be acquired by the Government of India	at any time.
The names of states and union territories and their territorial	extent are mentioned in the first schedule of the Constitution. At	present, there are 28 states and 9 union territories. The provisions
of the Constitution pertaining to the states are applicable to all the	states in the same manner2. However, the special provisions	(under Part XXI) applicable to the States of Maharashtra, Gujarat,
Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Sikkim,	Mizoram, Arunanchal Pradesh, Goa and Karnataka override the	general provisions relating to the states as a class. Further, the
respect to the administration of scheduled areas and tribal areas	within the states.	Notably, the ‘Territory of India’ is a wider expression than the
‘Union of India’ because the latter includes only states while the	former includes not only the states, but also union territories and	territories that may be acquired by the Government of India at any
future time. The states are the members of the federal system and	share a distribution of powers with the Centre. The union	territories and the acquired territories, on the other hand, are
directly administered by the Central government.	Being a sovereign state, India can acquire foreign territories	according to the modes recognised by international law, i.e.,
cession (following treaty, purchase, gift, lease or plebiscite),	occupation (hitherto unoccupied by a recognised ruler), conquest	or subjugation. For example, India acquired several foreign
territories such as Dadra and Nagar Haveli; Goa, Daman and Diu;	Puducherry; and Sikkim since the commencement of the	Constitution. The acquisition of these territories are discussed
later in this chapter.	Article 2 empowers the Parliament to ‘admit into the Union of	India, or establish, new states on such terms and conditions as it
thinks fit’. Thus, Article 2 grants two powers to the Parliament: (a)	the power to admit into the Union of India new states; and (b) the	power to establish new states. The first refers to the admission of
states which are already in existence, while the second refers to	the establishment of states which were not in existence before.	Notably, Article 2 relates to the admission or establishment of new
states that are not part of the Union of India. Article 3, on the other	hand, relates to the formation of or changes in the existing states	of the Union of India. In other words, Article 3 deals with the
PARLIAMENT’S POWER TO REORGANISE THE	STATES	Article 3 authorises the Parliament to:
(a) form a new state by separation of territory from any state or	by uniting two or more states 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; and
(e) alter the name of any state.	However, Article 3 lays down two conditions in this regard: one,	a bill contemplating the above changes can be introduced in the
Parliament only with the prior recommendation of the President;	and two, before recommending the bill, the President has to refer	the same to the state legislature concerned for expressing its
views within a specified period.	Further, the power of Parliament to form new states includes	the power to form a new state or union territory by uniting a part of
any state or union territory to any other state or union territory3 .	The President (or Parliament) is not bound by the views of the	state legislature and may either accept or reject them, even if the
views are received in time. Further, it is not necessary to make a	fresh reference to the state legislature every time an amendment	to the bill is moved and accepted in Parliament4. In case of a
union territory, no reference need be made to the concerned	legislature to ascertain its views and the Parliament can itself take	any action as it deems fit.
It is, thus, clear that the Constitution authorises the Parliament	to form new states or alter the areas, boundaries or names of the	existing states without their consent. In other words, the
Parliament can redraw the political map of India according to its	will. Hence, the territorial integrity or continued existence of any	state is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, India is
rightly described as ‘an indestructible union of destructible states’.	The Union Government can destroy the states whereas the state	governments cannot destroy the Union. In USA, on the other
hand, the territorial integrity or continued existence of a state is	guaranteed by the Constitution. The American Federal	Government cannot form new states or alter the borders of
existing states without the consent of the states concerned. That	is why the USA is described as ‘an indestructible union of	indestructible states.’
Moreover, the Constitution (Article 4) itself declares that laws	made for admission or establishment of new states (under Article	2) and formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries
or names of existing states (under Articles 3) are not to be	considered as amendments of the Constitution under Article 368.	This means that such laws can be passed by a simple majority
and by the ordinary legislative process.	Does the power of Parliament to diminish the areas of a state	(under Article 3) include also the power to cede Indian territory to
a foreign country? This question came up for examination before	the Supreme Court in a reference made by the President in 1960.	The decision of the Central Government to cede part of a territory
known as Berubari Union (West Bengal) to Pakistan led to political	agitation and controversy and thereby necessitated the	Presidential reference. The Supreme Court held that the power of
Parliament to diminish the area of a state (under Article 3) does	not cover cession of Indian territory to a foreign country. Hence,	Indian territory can be ceded to a foreign state only by amending
the Constitution under Article 368. Consequently, the 9th	Constitutional Amendment Act (1960) was enacted to transfer the	said territory to Pakistan.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court in 1969 ruled that,	settlement of a boundary dispute between India and another	country does not require a constitutional amendment. It can be
EXCHANGE OF TERRITORIES WITH BANGLADESH	The 100th Constitutional Amendment Act (2015) was enacted to	give effect to the acquiring of certain territories by India and
transfer of certain other territories to Bangladesh in pursuance of	the agreement and its protocol entered into between the	Governments of India and Bangladesh. Under this deal, India
transferred 111 enclaves to Bangladesh, while Bangladesh	transferred 51 enclaves to India. In addition, the deal also involved	the transfer of adverse possessions and the demarcation of a 6.1
km undemarcated border stretch. For these three purposes, the	amendment modified the provisions relating to the territories of	four states (Assam, West Bengal, Meghalaya and Tripura) in the
First Schedule of the Constitution. The background of this	amendment is as follows:	1. India and Bangladesh have a common land boundary of
approximately 4096.7 kms. The India-East Pakistan land	boundary was determined as per the Radcliffe Award of	1947. Disputes arose out of some provisions in the Radcliffe
Award, which were sought to be resolved through the Bagge	Award of 1950. Another effort was made to settle these	disputes by the Nehru-Noon Agreement of 1958. However,
the issue relating to division of Berubari Union was	challenged before the Supreme Court. To comply with the	opinion rendered by the Supreme Court, the Constitution
(9th Amendment) Act, 1960 was passed by the Parliament.	Due to the continuous litigation and other political	developments at that time, the Constitution (9th
Amendment) Act, 1960 could not be notified in respect of	territories in former East Pakistan (presently Bangladesh).4a	2. On May 16, 1974, the Agreement between India and
Bangladesh concerning the demarcation of the land	boundary and related matters was signed between both the	countries to find a solution to the complex nature of the
border demarcation involved. This Agreement was not	ratified as it involved, inter alia, transfer of territory which	requires a Constitutional Amendment. In this connection, it
was also required to identify the precise area on the ground	which would be transferred. Subsequently, the issues	relating to demarcation of un-demarcated boundary; the
territories in adverse possession; and exchange of enclaves	were identified and resolved by signing a Protocol on	September 6, 2011, which forms an integral part of the Land
Boundary Agreement between India and Bangladesh, 1974.	The Protocol was prepared with support and concurrence of	the concerned state governments of Assam, Meghalaya,
EVOLUTION OF STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES	Integration of Princely States	At the time of independence, India comprised two categories of
political units, namely, the British provinces (under the direct rule	of British government) and the princely states (under the rule of	native princes but subject to the paramountcy of the British
Crown). The Indian Independence Act (1947) created two	independent and separate dominions of India and Pakistan and	gave three options to the princely states viz., joining India, joining
Pakistan or remaining independent. Of the 552 princely states	situated within the geographical boundaries of India, 549 joined	India and the remaining 3 (Hyderabad, Junagarh and Kashmir)
refused to join India. However, in course of time, they were also	integrated with India–Hyderabad by means of police action,	Junagarh by means of referendum and Kashmir by the Instrument
of Accession.	In 1950, the Constitution contained a four-fold classification of	the states and territories of the Indian Union–Part A, Part B and
Part C states and Part D territories5. In all, they numbered 29. Part	A states comprised nine erstwhile governor’s provinces of British	India. Part B states consisted of nine erstwhile princely states with
legislatures. Part C states consisted of erstwhile chief	commissioner’s provinces of British India and some of the	erstwhile princely states. These Part C states (in all 10 in number)
were centrally administered. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands	were kept as the solitary Part D territories.	Dhar Commission and JVP Committee
The integration of princely states with the rest of India has purely	an ad hoc arrangement. There has been a demand from different	regions, particularly South India, for reorganisation of states on
linguistic basis. Accordingly, in June 1948, the Government of	India appointed the Linguistic Provinces Commission under the	chairmanship of S.K. Dhar to examine the feasibility of this. The
commission submitted its report in December, 1948, and	recommended the reorganisation of states on the basis of	administrative convenience rather than linguistic factor. This
created much resentment and led to the appointment of another	Linguistic Provinces Committee by the Congress in December,	1948, itself to examine the whole question afresh. It consisted of
Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallahbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya and	hence, was popularly known as JVP Committee6. It submitted its	report in April, 1949, and formally rejected language as the basis
for reorganisation of states.	Table 5.1 Territory of India in 1950	States in States in States in Territories in Part D
Part A Part B Part C	1. Assam 1. Hyderabad 1. Ajmer 1. Andaman and	Nicobar Islands
2. Bihar 2. Jammu 2. Bhopal	and Kashmir	3. Bombay 3. Madhya 3. Bilaspur
Bharat	4. Madhya 4. Mysore 4. Cooch-	Pradesh Behar
5. Madras 5. Patiala 5. Coorg	and East	Punjab
6. Orissa 6. Rajasthan 6. Delhi	7. Punjab 7. Saurashtra 7. Himachal	Pradesh

(a) Atheistic State: The state is anti-religion and hence,

condemns all religions.

(b) Theocratic State: The state is pro-religion and

hence, declares one particular religion as the state

religion, as for example, Bangladesh, Burma, Sri

Lanka, Pakistan, and so on.

religion as the state religion, as for example, USA

and India.

G.S. Pande, Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad

Law Agency, eighth edition, 2002, P. 222.

10. The then Union Law Minister, H.R. Gokhale defined this

concept as: ‘There will be freedom, liberty of faith and

worship, whatever religion you belong to. The State will

not have anything to do, as a state, with any religion

excepting to treat every religion equally, but the State

will not have any foundation of religion’. Similarly, P.B.

Gajendragadkar, a former Chief Justice of India, defined

secularism as in the Indian Constitution in the following

way: ‘The State does not owe loyalty to any particular

religion as such: it is not irreligious or anti-religious; it

gives equal freedom to all religions’.

11. The term ‘democracy’ is derived from two Greek words,

namely, Demos and Kratia meaning ‘People’ and ‘rule’

respectively.

12. Referendum is a procedure whereby a proposed

legislation is referred to the electorate for settlement by

their direct votes.

Initiative is a method by means of which the people can

propose a bill to the legislature for enactment.

Recall is a method by means of which the voters can

remove a representative or an officer before the expiry

of his term, when he fails to discharge his duties

properly.

Plebiscite is a method of obtaining the opinion India’s of

people on any issue of public importance. It is generally

used to solve the territorial disputes.

12a. B. Shiva Rao, The Framing of India’s Constitution:

Select Documents, Volume IV, P. 944.

13. He said that the Preamble of the Indian Constitution

states ‘in a brief and pithy form the argument of much of

the book; and it may accordingly serve as a key-note’.

14. He wrote: ‘I am all the more moved to quote it because I

political tradition which we in the west call western, but

which is now something more than the western’.

15. M Hidayatullah, Democracy in India and the Judicial

Process, p. 51.

16. Reference by the President of India under Article 143 of

the Constitution on the implementation of the Indo-

Pakistan agreement relating to Berubari union and

exchange of enclaves (1960).

17. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).

18. LIC of India v. Consumer Education and Research

Centre (1995).

19. ‘Constituent Assembly Debates’, Volume 10, P. 450–

456.

20. The Court observed, ‘The edifice of our Constitution is

based upon the basic elements mentioned in the

Preamble. If any of these elements are removed, the

structure will not survive and it will not be the same

Constitution or it cannot maintain its identity. An

amending power cannot be interpreted so as to confer

power on the Parliament to take away any of these

fundamental and basic characteristics of the polity’.

5 Union and its Territory

A

rticles 1 to 4 under Part-I of the Constitution deal with the

UNION OF STATES

Article 1 describes India, that is, Bharat as a ‘Union of States’

rather than a ‘Federation of States’. This provision deals with two

things: one, name of the country; and two, type of polity.

There was no unanimity in the Constituent Assembly with

regard to the name of the country. Some members suggested the

traditional name (Bharat), while other advocated the modern

name (India). Hence, the Constituent Assembly had to adopt a

mix of both (‘India, that is, Bharat’)

Secondly, the country is described as ‘Union’ although its

Constitution is federal in structure. According to Dr. B.R.

Ambedkar, the phrase ‘Union of States’ has been preferred to

‘Federation of States’ for two reasons: one, the Indian Federation

is not the result of an agreement among the states like the

American Federation; and two, the states have no right to secede

from the federation. The federation is an Union because it is

indestructible. The country is an integral whole and divided into

different states only for the convenience of administration1 .

According to Article 1, the territory of India can be classified into

three categories:

1. Territories of the states

2. Union territories

3. Territories that may be acquired by the Government of India

at any time.

The names of states and union territories and their territorial

extent are mentioned in the first schedule of the Constitution. At

present, there are 28 states and 9 union territories. The provisions

of the Constitution pertaining to the states are applicable to all the

states in the same manner2. However, the special provisions

(under Part XXI) applicable to the States of Maharashtra, Gujarat,

Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Sikkim,

Mizoram, Arunanchal Pradesh, Goa and Karnataka override the

general provisions relating to the states as a class. Further, the

respect to the administration of scheduled areas and tribal areas

within the states.

Notably, the ‘Territory of India’ is a wider expression than the

‘Union of India’ because the latter includes only states while the

former includes not only the states, but also union territories and

territories that may be acquired by the Government of India at any

future time. The states are the members of the federal system and

share a distribution of powers with the Centre. The union

territories and the acquired territories, on the other hand, are

directly administered by the Central government.

Being a sovereign state, India can acquire foreign territories

according to the modes recognised by international law, i.e.,

cession (following treaty, purchase, gift, lease or plebiscite),

occupation (hitherto unoccupied by a recognised ruler), conquest

or subjugation. For example, India acquired several foreign

territories such as Dadra and Nagar Haveli; Goa, Daman and Diu;

Puducherry; and Sikkim since the commencement of the

Constitution. The acquisition of these territories are discussed

later in this chapter.

Article 2 empowers the Parliament to ‘admit into the Union of

India, or establish, new states on such terms and conditions as it

thinks fit’. Thus, Article 2 grants two powers to the Parliament: (a)

the power to admit into the Union of India new states; and (b) the

power to establish new states. The first refers to the admission of

states which are already in existence, while the second refers to

the establishment of states which were not in existence before.

Notably, Article 2 relates to the admission or establishment of new

states that are not part of the Union of India. Article 3, on the other

hand, relates to the formation of or changes in the existing states

of the Union of India. In other words, Article 3 deals with the

PARLIAMENT’S POWER TO REORGANISE THE

STATES

Article 3 authorises the Parliament to:

(a) form a new state by separation of territory from any state or

by uniting two or more states 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; and

(e) alter the name of any state.

However, Article 3 lays down two conditions in this regard: one,

a bill contemplating the above changes can be introduced in the

Parliament only with the prior recommendation of the President;

and two, before recommending the bill, the President has to refer

the same to the state legislature concerned for expressing its

views within a specified period.

Further, the power of Parliament to form new states includes

the power to form a new state or union territory by uniting a part of

any state or union territory to any other state or union territory3 .

The President (or Parliament) is not bound by the views of the

state legislature and may either accept or reject them, even if the

views are received in time. Further, it is not necessary to make a

fresh reference to the state legislature every time an amendment

to the bill is moved and accepted in Parliament4. In case of a

union territory, no reference need be made to the concerned

legislature to ascertain its views and the Parliament can itself take

any action as it deems fit.

It is, thus, clear that the Constitution authorises the Parliament

to form new states or alter the areas, boundaries or names of the

existing states without their consent. In other words, the

Parliament can redraw the political map of India according to its

will. Hence, the territorial integrity or continued existence of any

state is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, India is

rightly described as ‘an indestructible union of destructible states’.

The Union Government can destroy the states whereas the state

governments cannot destroy the Union. In USA, on the other

hand, the territorial integrity or continued existence of a state is

guaranteed by the Constitution. The American Federal

Government cannot form new states or alter the borders of

existing states without the consent of the states concerned. That

is why the USA is described as ‘an indestructible union of

indestructible states.’

Moreover, the Constitution (Article 4) itself declares that laws

made for admission or establishment of new states (under Article

2) and formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries

or names of existing states (under Articles 3) are not to be

considered as amendments of the Constitution under Article 368.

This means that such laws can be passed by a simple majority

and by the ordinary legislative process.

Does the power of Parliament to diminish the areas of a state

(under Article 3) include also the power to cede Indian territory to

a foreign country? This question came up for examination before

the Supreme Court in a reference made by the President in 1960.

The decision of the Central Government to cede part of a territory

known as Berubari Union (West Bengal) to Pakistan led to political

agitation and controversy and thereby necessitated the

Presidential reference. The Supreme Court held that the power of

Parliament to diminish the area of a state (under Article 3) does

not cover cession of Indian territory to a foreign country. Hence,

Indian territory can be ceded to a foreign state only by amending

the Constitution under Article 368. Consequently, the 9th

Constitutional Amendment Act (1960) was enacted to transfer the

said territory to Pakistan.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court in 1969 ruled that,

settlement of a boundary dispute between India and another

country does not require a constitutional amendment. It can be

EXCHANGE OF TERRITORIES WITH BANGLADESH

The 100th Constitutional Amendment Act (2015) was enacted to

give effect to the acquiring of certain territories by India and

transfer of certain other territories to Bangladesh in pursuance of

the agreement and its protocol entered into between the

Governments of India and Bangladesh. Under this deal, India

transferred 111 enclaves to Bangladesh, while Bangladesh

transferred 51 enclaves to India. In addition, the deal also involved

the transfer of adverse possessions and the demarcation of a 6.1

km undemarcated border stretch. For these three purposes, the

amendment modified the provisions relating to the territories of

four states (Assam, West Bengal, Meghalaya and Tripura) in the

First Schedule of the Constitution. The background of this

amendment is as follows:

1. India and Bangladesh have a common land boundary of

approximately 4096.7 kms. The India-East Pakistan land

boundary was determined as per the Radcliffe Award of

1947. Disputes arose out of some provisions in the Radcliffe

Award, which were sought to be resolved through the Bagge

Award of 1950. Another effort was made to settle these

disputes by the Nehru-Noon Agreement of 1958. However,

the issue relating to division of Berubari Union was

challenged before the Supreme Court. To comply with the

opinion rendered by the Supreme Court, the Constitution

(9th Amendment) Act, 1960 was passed by the Parliament.

Due to the continuous litigation and other political

developments at that time, the Constitution (9th

Amendment) Act, 1960 could not be notified in respect of

territories in former East Pakistan (presently Bangladesh).4a

2. On May 16, 1974, the Agreement between India and

Bangladesh concerning the demarcation of the land

boundary and related matters was signed between both the

countries to find a solution to the complex nature of the

border demarcation involved. This Agreement was not

ratified as it involved, inter alia, transfer of territory which

requires a Constitutional Amendment. In this connection, it

was also required to identify the precise area on the ground

which would be transferred. Subsequently, the issues

relating to demarcation of un-demarcated boundary; the

territories in adverse possession; and exchange of enclaves

were identified and resolved by signing a Protocol on

September 6, 2011, which forms an integral part of the Land

Boundary Agreement between India and Bangladesh, 1974.

The Protocol was prepared with support and concurrence of

the concerned state governments of Assam, Meghalaya,

EVOLUTION OF STATES AND UNION TERRITORIES

Integration of Princely States

At the time of independence, India comprised two categories of

political units, namely, the British provinces (under the direct rule

of British government) and the princely states (under the rule of

native princes but subject to the paramountcy of the British

Crown). The Indian Independence Act (1947) created two

independent and separate dominions of India and Pakistan and

gave three options to the princely states viz., joining India, joining

Pakistan or remaining independent. Of the 552 princely states

situated within the geographical boundaries of India, 549 joined

India and the remaining 3 (Hyderabad, Junagarh and Kashmir)

refused to join India. However, in course of time, they were also

integrated with India–Hyderabad by means of police action,

Junagarh by means of referendum and Kashmir by the Instrument

of Accession.

In 1950, the Constitution contained a four-fold classification of

the states and territories of the Indian Union–Part A, Part B and

Part C states and Part D territories5. In all, they numbered 29. Part

A states comprised nine erstwhile governor’s provinces of British

India. Part B states consisted of nine erstwhile princely states with

legislatures. Part C states consisted of erstwhile chief

commissioner’s provinces of British India and some of the

erstwhile princely states. These Part C states (in all 10 in number)

were centrally administered. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands

were kept as the solitary Part D territories.

Dhar Commission and JVP Committee

The integration of princely states with the rest of India has purely

an ad hoc arrangement. There has been a demand from different

regions, particularly South India, for reorganisation of states on

linguistic basis. Accordingly, in June 1948, the Government of

India appointed the Linguistic Provinces Commission under the

chairmanship of S.K. Dhar to examine the feasibility of this. The

commission submitted its report in December, 1948, and

recommended the reorganisation of states on the basis of

administrative convenience rather than linguistic factor. This

created much resentment and led to the appointment of another

Linguistic Provinces Committee by the Congress in December,

1948, itself to examine the whole question afresh. It consisted of

Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallahbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya and

hence, was popularly known as JVP Committee6. It submitted its

report in April, 1949, and formally rejected language as the basis

for reorganisation of states.

Table 5.1 Territory of India in 1950

States in States in States in Territories in Part D

Part A Part B Part C

1. Assam 1. Hyderabad 1. Ajmer 1. Andaman and

Nicobar Islands

2. Bihar 2. Jammu 2. Bhopal

and Kashmir

3. Bombay 3. Madhya 3. Bilaspur

Bharat

4. Madhya 4. Mysore 4. Cooch-

Pradesh Behar

5. Madras 5. Patiala 5. Coorg

and East

Punjab

6. Orissa 6. Rajasthan 6. Delhi

7. Punjab 7. Saurashtra 7. Himachal

Pradesh