Know All About Constitution of India

1) Introduction

In this article we are exploring all facts about Constitution of India The preface of a preamble in indigenous textbooks was a pioneering step, specially accepted by the framers of the American Constitution, marking a major departure from conventional indigenous drafting. This innovative approach was latterly emulated by the drafters of the Indian Constitution, therefore situating the preamble as a pivotal introductory element. frequently likened to an” Identity card of the Constitution” by indigenous expert N A Palkhivala, the preamble serves as a terse encapsulation of the abecedarian principles and bournes that bolster the indigenous frame. The birth of the Indian Preamble can be traced back to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s Objective Resolution, a foundational document that set up favor with the Constituent Assembly.

This visionary resolution laid the root for the Preamble, establishing a philosophical and moral compass for the incipient indigenous order. The Preamble, a testament to the collaborative wisdom and foresight of the framers, passed a significant metamorphosis in 1976 with the 42nd Amendment. This correction, a response to the evolving socio- political geography, introduced the vital generalities of’ socialist,” temporal,’ and’ integrity,’ thereby accelerating the Preamble’s reflective compass. Comprising four distinctive factors, the Preamble serves as a compass guiding the indigenous trip of India. originally, it articulates the source of authority, emphasizing that the constitution draws its legality and power from the people of India.

This foundational principle underscores the popular morality at the heart of the Indian indigenous edifice, where the people are the ultimate custodians of the governance outfit. The alternate hand delineates the nature of the Indian State, portraying it as autonomous, socialist, temporal, popular, and democratic. Each adjective in this description holds profound counteraccusations, inclusively shaping the character of the nation. The term’ autonomous’ underscores India’s autonomy and independence on the global stage, while’ socialist’ signifies a commitment to social and profitable justice ‘ temporal’ emphasizes the principle of religious impartiality in governance, icing a pluralistic and inclusive society. The terms’ popular’ and’ democratic’ affirm the political structure, pressing the significance of popular participation and the absence of heritable rulership.

The third element of the Preamble outlines the lofty objects of the Constitution, recapitulating the core values that guide the nation. Justice, liberty, equivalency, and fraternity crop as cardinal principles, reflecting the commitment to a just, free, egalitarian, and brotherly society. These objects serve as lights, directing the expression and interpretation of laws and programs. Incipiently, the Preamble enshrines the literal moment of the constitution’s relinquishment, affirming the 26th of November, 1949, as a corner in India’s indigenous elaboration. This date symbolizes the capstone of laborious reflections, signifying the birth of the indigenous democracy.

[All the facts about constitution of India] [Know all about constitution of india]

2) Features of the Constitution of India

1) Federal System with Unitary Bias

The Indian constitutional framework manifests as a Federal System with a discernible Unitary Bias. It formally establishes a federal government structure characterized by the quintessential attributes of a federal state, including dual levels of government, a division of powers, constitutional supremacy and rigidity, a written constitution, and bicameralism. However, interspersed within this federal tapestry are distinctive features reminiscent of a unitary form of governance.

Among these unitary inclinations are elements such as a singular citizenship, a robust central authority, a singular constitution, constitutional flexibility, the presence of all-India services, an integrated judiciary, the central appointment of state governors, emergency provisions, and more. Notably, the constitution refrains from explicitly employing the term ‘federation.’ Instead, Article 1 articulates that India is a ‘Union of States,’ connoting a nuanced perspective.

This choice of phrasing in Article 1 carries significant implications. It implies that the Indian federation is not an outcome of a formal agreement among the constituent states, distinguishing it from a consensual federation. Moreover, it underscores a crucial aspect – the states within this union lack the prerogative to secede. This deliberate omission reinforces the integral and indivisible nature of the Indian union, emphasizing the permanence and unity of the federal structure. In essence, the Indian constitutional design reflects a delicate equilibrium between federal and unitary attributes, aiming to preserve national unity while accommodating regional diversity.

2) Parliamentary Form of Government

The parliamentary form of government, inspired by the British system, operates on the foundational principle of cooperation and coordination between the legislative and executive branches. This governance model is often referred to as the Westminster model, as well as responsible government or cabinet government. Remarkably, this system extends beyond the central government to the states in India, signifying its pervasive influence.

In India, the parliamentary form of government encompasses distinctive features that define its functioning. Firstly, it entails the presence of both nominal and real executives, with the latter holding substantive executive powers. The principle of the rule of the majority party prevails, emphasizing the significance of the party or coalition with the most seats in the legislative body. Central to this model is the concept of collective responsibility, wherein the executive is collectively accountable to the legislature for its actions and policies.

Another pivotal feature is the membership of ministers in the legislature, highlighting the dual roles they play as lawmakers and members of the executive. The leadership of the Prime Minister at the central level or the Chief Minister at the state level is a crucial aspect, centralizing executive authority under a single leader. Additionally, the provision for the dissolution of the lower house provides a mechanism for seeking a fresh mandate from the electorate.

While both India and Britain adopt the parliamentary form of government, certain fundamental differences exist between their respective models. Notably, the Indian Parliament lacks the sovereignty attributed to its British counterpart. The British Parliament holds supreme legislative authority, a characteristic absent in the Indian context. Furthermore, the Indian state boasts an elected head due to its republican nature, contrasting with the hereditary head in Britain, given its status as a constitutional monarchy. These variations underscore the nuanced adaptations and modifications made to the parliamentary model to align with the distinct socio-political contexts of India.

3) Preamble

The Indian Constitution begins with a preamble that serves as an introductory statement, expressing the guiding principles and  objects. It encapsulates the  substance of the constitution,  pressing  generalities  similar as justice, liberty,  equivalency, and fraternity. 

4) Written Constitution

Unlike an unwritten constitution, India’s constitution is written, providing a comprehensive and codified document that serves as the supreme law of the land. It details the structure of the government, fundamental rights, and directive principles.

5) Fundamental Rights

Fundamental Rights. The constitution guarantees abecedarian rights to Indian citizens,  icing individual freedoms  similar as the right to  equivalency, freedom of speech, and protection against demarcation. These rights act as safeguards against arbitrary state  conduct. 

6) Directive Principles of State Policy

Complementing fundamental rights, directive principles are guidelines for the government to establish a just and egalitarian society. Though not enforceable in court, they are fundamental to policymaking and governance.

7) Independent Judiciary

India boasts an independent judiciary that serves as the guardian of the constitution. The bar has the power of judicial review,  icing that laws and governmental  conduct align with  indigenous principles. 

8) Rule of Law

The principle of the rule of law is integral to the Constitution of India. It ensures that everyone, including the government, is subject to and  responsible under the law, fostering a just and  indifferent society. 

9) Secularism

The constitution upholds secularism, promoting religious neutrality in governance. It guarantees freedom of religion and prevents discrimination on religious grounds.

10) Amendment Procedure

The constitution provides a mechanism for its own amendment to adapt to evolving needs. However, certain fundamental aspects, known as the ‘basic structure,’ cannot be altered.

3) The Union and its Territory

The genesis of Article 1 of the Constitution of India, drafted in 1950, unfolded through a series of deliberations spanning multiple sessions of the Constituent Assembly. Commencing on the 15th of November 1948 and continuing through the 17th and 18th of September 1949, the assembly engaged in fervent debates regarding the characterization of India in the proposed constitutional framework.

The crux of the matter lay in the nomenclature chosen for India – described as a ‘Union of States’ in the initial Draft Article. This appellation triggered confusion among the assembly members, who questioned the preference for ‘Union of States’ over the seemingly more apt term, ‘Federation.’ The Chairman of the Drafting Committee, in an attempt to dispel this confusion, elucidated that the choice of ‘Union of States’ was deliberate. It served as a safeguard against any potential misinterpretation that states within the union possessed the right to secede from the Indian nation.

During the deliberations, a member proposed a renaming of the country from ‘India’ to ‘Bharat,’ citing historical precedence and cultural significance. This proposal, however, met with a nuanced response as another member sought a compromise. A compelling amendment emerged, suggesting the inclusion of both ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ in the Draft Article. To capture this compromise, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee introduced an amendment, proposing that the Draft Article read, ‘India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.’ Despite a solitary dissenting voice that found the phrasing inelegant, the amendment garnered widespread support within the assembly.

Throughout the deliberative process, the Constituent Assembly grappled with several proposed amendments to the Draft Article. However, it steadfastly adhered to the amendments put forth by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. The assembly, on the 18th of September 1949, culminated this extensive discourse by officially adopting the amended Draft Article. In doing so, it laid the foundational framework for the constitutional identity of India as a ‘Union of States,’ incorporating the dual nomenclature of ‘India’ and ‘Bharat.’

This episode in the constitutional evolution of India reflects the meticulous considerations and nuanced compromises that shaped the nation’s foundational document. The debates surrounding Article 1 underscore the delicate balance between linguistic, cultural, and constitutional sensitivities that the framers navigated in their pursuit of a united and harmonious nation. The adopted formulation stands as a testament to the foresight and sagacity of the Constituent Assembly in crafting a constitutional identity that resonates with India’s diverse historical and cultural tapestry.

4) Admission or establishment of new States       

The deliberations surrounding Draft Article 2 during the sessions of the Constituent Assembly in November 1948 marked a crucial phase in the framing of the Indian Constitution. The central focus of these discussions was the empowerment of Parliament to legislate for the admission or establishment of states into the Union.
A member of the assembly raised a material concern during the debates, emphasizing the need for a precise description of the term’ State.’ He argued that the Draft Constitution employed the term’ state’ in colorful surrounds without a harmonious description, leading to implicit interpretive inscrutability. To address this, he supported for a clear description that constantly inferred a form of sovereignty. His offer suggested retaining traditional expressions like’ businesses, Indian States, and Chief Officers’ businesses’ to bring clarity to the indigenous language.

Adding another layer to the discussion, this member contended that Draft Articles 2 and 3 exhibited an overlap in their scope. Proposing a consolidation, he suggested replacing the two articles with a single, comprehensive article. He posited that the objectives of Draft Article 2 were effectively fulfilled by Draft Article 3, rendering the presence of two separate articles redundant. However, this consolidation proposal did not find favor among the assembly members, and it was not accepted as an amendment. Despite the debates and proposed amendments, the Constituent Assembly ultimately chose to adopt Draft Article 2 without any modifications on the 17th of November 1948. This decision underscored the assembly’s collective judgment that the drafted provision adequately addressed the concerns related to the admission or establishment of states within the Union.

5) Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States

The debates surrounding Article 3, formerly known as Draft Article 3, during the sessions of the Constituent Assembly in November 1948 and October 1949 were marked by a pivotal discourse on the allocation of powers between the Centre and the States in matters related to the formation and alteration of states.

At the heart of the  conversations was a compelling argument made by one member,  championing for a popular and exemplary approach in the decision- making process for altering being  countries. This member ardently contended that any proposal to change the boundaries or structure of a state should emanate from the State Legislature concerned. likewise, he emphasized the  pivotal  part of public participation, asserting that both the State Legislature and the  residers of the state should be consulted before any  differences take place. His argument was  predicated in the principles of republic, asserting that  opinions of  similar magnitude shouldn’t be assessed from the top but should involve the stakeholders directly impacted. 

However, not everyone in the assembly shared this viewpoint. Another member raised a counterargument, pointing out that such a stipulation might stifle minority demands for separate states. He posited that expecting a state to advocate for its own separation might be an impractical requirement.

also, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee expressed  dubitation about the necessity of this offer, citing an correction he introduced. Through his proposed correction, he sought to address these  enterprises by incorporating a clause calling the President to consult with the  countries concerned before  making any law under Composition 3.

In the end, the Constituent Assembly opted to adopt Article 3, but not without amendments introduced by the Drafting Committee. This decision reflected a delicate balance struck between the imperative for a popular and exemplary process in altering state boundaries and the practical considerations of addressing  nonage demands. The addition of the  discussion clause aimed to  alleviate the apprehensions about a top-down  duty of  opinions and  underlined the assembly’s commitment to a civil structure that respects the  enterprises and interests of individual  countries. 

6) Laws made under articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth Schedules and supplemental, incidental and consequential matters

On the 18th of November 1948, the Constituent Assembly engaged in a discussion centered around Article 4, then known as Draft Article 4, a pivotal provision that regulated laws under Articles 2 and 3 of the proposed constitution.

Surprisingly, the deliberations on this Draft Article lacked substantial debate, with a notable exception. One member, in an effort to streamline the language for brevity, proposed substituting ‘article 2 and article 3’ with the more concise ‘article 2 and 3’. However, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee opposed this modification, offering insights into the drafting methodology. He highlighted that the Drafting Committee adhered to a common foreign precedent, emphasizing continuity with the format used in the Government of India Act 1935.

Despite the simplicity of the proposed amendment, the Constituent Assembly chose not to endorse it. Consequently, Article 4, in its final form, was adopted on the same day. The ratified Article 4, enshrined in the Constitution of India 1950, plays a crucial role in providing a regulatory framework for laws falling under Articles 2 and 3.

Article 4 comprises two significant clauses. The first clause stipulates that any law referenced in Article 2 or Article 3 must incorporate provisions necessary for amending the First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule.  Also, the law may carry  peripheral, incidental, and consequential  vittles, encompassing aspects  similar as representation in Parliament and the houses of the affected  countries.

Importantly, the second clause of Article 4 elucidates a critical nuance. It clarifies that  similar  ordinances, despite their transformative nature, won’t be  supposed as  emendations to the Constitution under Article 368. This  qualification draws a distinct line between  usual legislation and  indigenous  emendations,  emphasizing the  special nature and  compass of  ordinances  legislated pursuant to Articles 2 and 3. 

7) Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution

The contours of Indian citizenship took shape through the discussions on Draft Article 5, which later became Article 5 in the Constitution of India. This significant discourse unfolded over three days—August 10, 11, and 12, 1949—within the Constituent Assembly.

A notable contention during these discussions revolved around the inclusion of a residuary provision tied to religion. Some members argued for the automatic entitlement of Indian citizenship for Hindus or Sikhs, irrespective of their residence, as long as they were not citizens of any other state. Advocates for this approach believed it would be a fitting recognition for individuals sharing a cultural and religious affinity with the Indian subcontinent.

In opposition to this view, another member vehemently resisted intertwining religion with citizenship. He passionately  laid down that principles of justice and  impartiality should guide citizenship  regulations,  featuring the  significance of  finessing  foreign conditions.   Amidst these debates, the  conclusion of binary citizenship  surfaced as a point of contention. One member  ventilated a keen interest in accommodating binary citizenship, alluding that this  honor should extend to  nations grounded on the principle of reciprocity. The  eidolon was  embedded  in  furthering stronger ties with  countries  glad to  repay such a arrangement.

However, not all voices aligned with the prevailing sentiment. A member expressed concerns that the proposed Draft Article would render Indian citizenship too easily attainable and, in his view, cheapened its value. In response, a counterpoint emerged, asserting that the provisions outlined in Draft Article 5 were, in fact, more stringent than the American laws governing citizenship.

The discussions witnessed the voluntary withdrawal of some proposed amendments, while others were put to a vote and subsequently rejected. Ultimately, on August 12, 1949, the Constituent Assembly endorsed Draft Article 5, embracing the version put forth by the Drafting Committee. This marked a  vital moment in defining the foundational principles of Indian citizenship,  featuring a balance between feting  artistic affections and  clinging to principles of justice and  impartiality in the evolving  indigenous  geography. 

8) Rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan (Article-6)

The deliberations within the Constituent Assembly on Draft Article 5A, later formalized as Article 6, unfolded over three consequential days—August 10, 11, and 12, 1949. Noteworthy is the historical context that this article addressed, focusing on the principles of citizenship applicable to those who migrated from Pakistan to India post-partition. It’s worth noting that this provision had not found a place in the initial Draft Constitution of 1948.

One of the key debates centered around the proposal to include the phrase ‘on account of Civil disturbance or the fear of such disturbances’ in the first clause. Advocates for this addition contended that it would serve to explicitly articulate the true intent of the provision, which was to facilitate migration from Pakistan amid civil disturbances or the apprehension thereof.

Another significant proposal sought to mandate the provision of evidence to substantiate the right by descent and the intention to permanently reside in India. The proponent of this idea argued passionately that Indian citizenship should be viewed as a significant privilege, not a facile or readily accessible matter.

Amidst these discussions, a member of the Drafting Committee reminded the Assembly of the primary objective of Article 6. He emphasized that its purpose was to establish fundamental principles of citizenship rather than formulating an exhaustive ‘code of nationality law,’ a task explicitly delegated to Parliament. Another member underscored the uniqueness of the Indian Constitution in its comprehensive treatment of various aspects of nationality law, setting it apart from other constitutional frameworks.

As the debate progressed, some members voluntarily withdrew their proposed amendments, recognizing the nuances of the discussion. Simultaneously, other proposed amendments were put to vote and subsequently rejected. Ultimately, on August 12, 1949, the Constituent Assembly made the significant decision to adopt Draft Article 5A. In doing so, it solidified the foundational principles that would govern the citizenship of those who migrated from Pakistan to India in the aftermath of partition, reflecting a nuanced and carefully considered approach to this complex aspect of constitutional legislation.

9) Rights of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan (Article 7)

The discussions within the Constituent Assembly on Draft Article 5AA, eventually formalized as Article 7, unfolded over three significant days—August 10, 11, and 12, 1949. This particular provision, proposed by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, aimed to regulate the claims to citizenship by individuals who had migrated to Pakistan.

However, not all members were in favor of this proposed article. Some expressed strong reservations, deeming it ‘obnoxious.’ The core of their discontent lay in the perception that individuals migrating from India to Pakistan had already ‘transferred their loyalty’ to another country. 

They argued that the permit system, as defined in the composition, was  overly favorable to these  individualities, making it comparatively easier for them to acquire Indian citizenship. In  discrepancy, they contended that  settlers from Pakistan should be treated akin to other nonnatives, acquiring citizenship through the more  standard-issue process of naturalization.   To  fight this  standpoint, proponents of the composition argued that the permit system would not be  enforced casually.

They stressed that it was an essential measure, aligning with the Indian government’s  devotion to  recuperation and resettlement for  settlers from Pakistan. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee  underlined the  virtuous imperative of  recognizing  pledges made for  recuperation. He  supposed reneging on these commitments as’  jealous,’  pressing the  eventuality for causing the’ grossest injustice.’   The debates also touched upon the  elaborate  conclusion of property left before by  settlers,  codified as’ expat property’ under the law. 

A member raised the pertinent question of how property claims would be settled when a person returned and subsequently acquired Indian citizenship. A clarification was provided by a member of the Drafting Committee, emphasizing that citizenship and property rights bore no inherent relationship in either international or domestic law.

Despite the varying opinions and reservations, the Constituent Assembly, on August 12, 1949, chose to adopt Article 7 without introducing any amendments. This decision reflected a delicate balance between addressing the practical challenges posed by migration and upholding principles of justice and commitment to rehabilitation promises. In doing so, the assembly navigated the complexities of citizenship claims and property rights in the aftermath of significant population movements.

10) Rights of citizenship of certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India (Article 8)

The deliberations within the Constituent Assembly on Draft Article 5B, later designated as Article 8, unfolded over three pivotal days—August 10, 11, and 12, 1949. Unlike its absence in the initial Draft Constitution of 1948, the proposal for this article came from the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, introducing regulations on the citizenship rights of individuals of Indian origin residing outside the country.

One member voiced concerns during the debates, contending that the article exhibited preferential treatment towards Indians abroad seeking Indian citizenship. The point of contention centered on the provision allowing for application and registration even after the commencement of the Constitution. The member highlighted what they perceived as an inconsistency: the previous article addressing citizenship for those who migrated from Pakistan did not offer a similar prospective application.

Despite this dissenting viewpoint, the Constituent Assembly, on August 12, 1949, made the decision to adopt Article 8 without introducing any amendments. This  liberty  underlined the assembly’s  devotion to regulating the citizenship  birthrights of  individualities of Indian origin abiding outside the country, while  contemporaneously scuffling with the  refined question of  loveliness in the  operation process. The relinquishment of Composition 8 marked another step in defining the  silhouettes of Indian citizenship, reflecting the assembly’s  sapient  path to the different  scripts arising from  literal and geopolitical  portions. 

11) Article 12, Constitution of India 1950

On November 25, 1948, the Constituent Assembly engaged in a critical debate over Draft Article 7, subsequently designated as Article 12 in the final constitution. This particular article held significant importance as it served as the gateway provision for Part III, delineating the Fundamental Rights, and crucially, it defined the term ‘State’ as utilized throughout this section.

During the  reflections, a  noble  company  surfaced among the  ingredients  descrying the perceived vagueness of the composition’s  phrasing. Some  ingredients  smelled   impelled to propose  emendations to  manipulate this  conclusion. Of particular contention was the inclusion of the term ‘other authorities,’ a phrase that, according to some members, risked encompassing virtually every government agency or officer within the expansive ambit of the ‘State.’ Another objection was raised against categorizing district boards and municipalities as part of the ‘State.’

In response to these concerns, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee stepped in to provide clarification. He emphasized that ‘other authorities’ referred specifically to entities vested with ‘the power to make laws or the power to have discretion vested in it.’ This distinction aimed to narrow the scope and avoid an overly broad interpretation. Additionally, he argued that listing the numerous institutions bound by Part III would be impractical and cumbersome, making the term ‘State’ a pragmatic choice for encompassing such entities.

Ultimately, the Constituent Assembly, with a mindful consideration of these deliberations, opted to adopt Article 12. Only a minor amendment was introduced, signaling the assembly’s recognition of the importance of crafting a precise and effective definition for ‘State’ within the context of Fundamental Rights. This  resolution reflected a careful balancing act,  icing that the language of the composition was sufficiently clear and  special while admitting the  ultrapractical  expostulations of enumerating every institution falling under the horizon of  portion III. 

12) Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights (Article 13)

In a series of deliberations spanning November 25, 26, and 29, 1948, the Constituent Assembly engaged in a critical discourse on Article 13, previously known as Draft Article 8. This article held paramount significance as it asserted that any existing law at the commencement of the Constitution inconsistent with Part III—detailing Fundamental Rights—would be rendered void.

During these  conversations, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee  proffered an correction seeking to explicitly  outline the  tours’ law’ and’  ordinances in  manpower.’ Feting  the  want for  perfection in  legit language, this correction  leveled  to extend clarity on the  compass of  ordinances affected by Composition 13.  still, a member  expressed a  noble  company,  championing for the  omission of the words’  ritual or  operation’ from the  proffered correction. The  reason posited that retaining these words might  warrant the  country,  preferably than the people, to establish  ritual. While the Chairman  purified that such an interpretation wasn’t intended, he  conceded the  significance of removing any implicit  nebulosity.

Accordingly, he acquainted an dispensable correction to  manipulate this  company, and it was accepted without  farther debate.   The amended Draft Composition, now  meliorated with  unequivocal delineations and  purified language, was  latterly  espoused by the Constituent Assembly on November 29, 1948. This  resolution  underlined the assembly’s  devotion to  perfection and clarity in  legitvittles, especially when dealing with the  vital matter of  delivering being  ordinances inconsistent with Abecedarian  birthrights void. The careful  reflection of language nuances reflected the assembly’s  fidelity to casting a constitution that not only enshrined principles but also assured their  operative  perpetration without  space for  misapprehension. 

13) Equality before law (Article 14)

The evolution of Article 14 in the Constitution of India 1950 reveals a nuanced process of drafting and refinement that diverged from its initial placement in the Draft Constitution of 1948. Originally, Article 14 was part of Draft Article 15 (Article 21), which encompassed the broader theme of the protection of life and liberty, equality before the law, and equal protection of the law within the territory of India.

The discussions on Draft Article 15 unfolded on December 6 and 13, 1948, with the focus primarily on the first part, centering on the protection of life and liberty. Intriguingly, the second part of Draft Article 15, pertaining to ‘equality before law,’ did not undergo any deliberations during these sessions.

In a noteworthy turn, the Drafting Committee, in a letter dated November 3, 1949, addressed to the President of the Constituent Assembly, put forth a significant proposal. The committee expressed its perspective that the article could benefit from a split into two distinct parts. Subsequently, it recommended transferring the latter part of Draft Article 15, which dealt specifically with ‘equality before law,’ to a new, standalone article labeled as Article 14, falling under the overarching heading of ‘Right to Equality.’

This strategic decision to bifurcate Draft Article 15 into two separate provisions, resulting in the introduction of Article 14, marked a deliberate move towards organizational clarity and thematic cohesion within the constitutional framework. The revised Draft Constitution, presented to the President, reflected this discerning choice, highlighting the commitment of the Drafting Committee to refine and streamline the constitutional text.

Thus, Article 14 found its place in the finalized Constitution of India 1950 as a distinctive provision under the ‘Right to Equality.’ This evolution underscores the thoughtful considerations and adaptability in the drafting process, ensuring that each facet of the constitution received due attention and clarity. The transformation of Article 14 stands as a testament to the meticulous craftsmanship that went into shaping the foundational document of India’s governance.

14) Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (Article 15)

On November 29, 1948, the Constituent Assembly engaged in a crucial debate over Draft Article 9, later formalized as Article 15 in the Constitution of India 1950. This article stood as a bulwark against discrimination, explicitly prohibiting it on five grounds: religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

During the deliberations, a notable contention emerged regarding the perceived omissions in addressing discrimination based on family or descent. Some members advocated for a more comprehensive scope, urging the inclusion of these aspects within the ambit of the Draft Article. Additionally, there were calls for specific mention of gardens, roads, and tramways as potential public spaces where discrimination should be expressly prohibited.

In response to these concerns, clarifications were offered to underscore the inclusive nature of the language used in the Draft Article. While specific spaces were mentioned, the overarching intent was to encompass a broad array of public spaces, even those not explicitly detailed in the text. This nuanced interpretation sought to ensure that the prohibition against discrimination extended comprehensively across various contexts.

A critical clause in the Draft Article permitted special provisions for women and children. However, a member proposed an amendment to include other vulnerable groups, namely Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, under this protective clause. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee,  still,  retired the  want for such an  extension, expressing  enterprises that it might inadvertently pave the  expressway for legal  isolation of these groups. Accordingly, the Assembly  refused this  proffered correction,  concluding to conserve the  particularity of the clause.

Despite these deliberations and proposed amendments, the Constituent Assembly, on November 29, 1948, took the decisive step of adopting the Draft Article as Article 15, incorporating certain amendments. This marked a significant moment in  suiting the  indigenous  frame of India,  featuring the  devotion to  equivalency and the eradication of demarcation in  colorful spheres of public life. The  refined  conversations and careful considerations during this assembly session  underlined the collaborative  fidelity to casting a constitution that  managed the different  expostulations of demarcation and inequality. 

15) Directive Principles of State Policy

On November 19, 1948, the Constituent Assembly delved into the discourse surrounding Draft Article 28, an integral component opening Part IV of the Draft Constitution titled ‘Directive Principles of State Policy.’ This article played a pivotal role in defining the contextual meaning of ‘State’ within this section.

The commencement of the debate witnessed a member proposing an amendment that sought to replace ‘Directive’ with ‘Fundamental’ in the heading of Part IV. This proposal stemmed from a historical perspective, noting that during earlier committee stages, Part IV bore the title ‘Fundamental Principles of Governance.’ The member questioned the rationale behind the change in the heading and advocated for a return to the term ‘Fundamental.’ In response, a clarification was offered, elucidating that the shift to ‘Directive’ was intentional. It aimed to underscore that the principles encapsulated in Part IV were directives rather than fundamental rights, maintaining a deliberate distinction from Part III.

Another amendment surfaced during the discussions, advocating for the replacement of ‘the State’ with ‘State.’ This proposed change prompted opposition from the Chairman of the Drafting Committee. He argued that the varied contexts in which the term ‘State’ was employed in the Draft Constitution necessitated precision. Specifically, in the realm of Directive Principles, ‘the State’ was deemed most appropriate. Drawing a parallel with Part III, where ‘the State’ encompassed entities like panchayats, district, and local boards (as outlined in Article 12), the Chairman emphasized that these were the relevant institutions for the implementation of Directive Principles.

The culmination of these deliberations resulted in the adoption of Article 28 on the very same day, with no amendments introduced. This decision reflected the assembly’s collective understanding of the nuanced distinction between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. The intentional use of ‘Directive’ emphasized the aspirational nature of the principles contained in Part IV, guiding the state in its policy decisions without imparting the legally enforceable character associated with Fundamental Rights. The careful consideration of language and terminology within this constitutional framework underscored the assembly’s commitment to crafting a document that not only enshrined principles but also reflected a nuanced understanding of their implementation and significance in governance.

16) Application of the principles contained in this Part (Article 37)

On November 19, 1948, the Constituent Assembly engaged in a significant discussion centered around Draft Article 29, a pivotal clause serving as the gateway to Part IV of the Constitution. This article delineated the division of institutional responsibilities for enforcing the Directive Principles of State Policy. Notably, it unequivocally asserted that the implementation of these principles fell solely within the domain of the State, explicitly excluding the involvement of the Courts.

During these deliberations, a consequential amendment was proposed to confer legal force upon the Directive Principles. The  explanation behind this proposition was the perception that, without  legit enforceability, these principles would remain bare aspirational ideals. The member  championing for this correction contended that relegating  overcritical socio- profitable principles, or any  indigenous  qualification, to anon-legally enforceable  demesne might render the bar  perfunctory in defending the Constitution. The  reason  farther  punctuated the  literal  dilapidation of socio- profitable principles during  social rule,  emphasizing the imperative of  investing them with  legit manpower in independent India. 

Despite this plea for legal enforceability, the Draft Article found both support and dissent within the Assembly. Another member, adopting a contrasting perspective, expressed confidence in the efficacy of the Directive Principles even without explicit legal backing. This member contended that the mere inclusion of these principles in the constitutional text implied a binding obligation on legislatures not to ignore or violate them. The belief was that the principles, though lacking direct legal force, would inherently influence legislative actions and foster their implementation.

Ultimately, on the same day, November 19, 1948, the Constituent Assembly opted to adopt Article 29 without introducing any amendments.

This  resolution reflected a  refined understanding within the assembly  descrying the  part and enforceability of Directive Principles. The debate illuminated varying perspectives on the necessity of  legit assistance for these principles, balancing the ambition for socio- profitable justice with a recognition of the  thick  indigenous  frame. The relinquishment of Composition 29 marked a  vital moment in  suiting the governance structure of independent India, setting the tone for the  refined relationship between  indigenous ideals and their  legit enforceability. 

17) State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people (Article 38)

On November 19, 1948, the Constituent Assembly engaged in a substantive debate surrounding Draft Article 30, later formalized as Article 38 in the Constitution of India 1950. This article emerged as a cornerstone, directing the State to embark on a journey of social transformation aimed at fostering social, economic, and political justice for the welfare of the people.

During the deliberations, a member presented a compelling proposition to replace the Draft Article with a provision that explicitly mandated the State to establish a socialist order. This envisioned a transformative shift involving the takeover of critical sectors of the economy. The proponent of this amendment argued vehemently against the prevailing capitalist system, contending that it was inherently oppressive. According to this perspective, securing the welfare of the people necessitated organizing India along socialist lines. Crucially, the member advocated for the explicit inclusion of the term ‘socialist democracy’ in the constitutional text.

Simultaneously, another member, while acknowledging the importance of the article, raised a pragmatic concern regarding its implementation. Drawing parallels with the ‘Instrument of Instructions’ in the Government of India Act 1935, a set of provisions akin to the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSPs), this member highlighted the absence of mechanisms ensuring implementation in the Indian Constitution. A call was made for the establishment of a ‘superior authority’ empowered to oversee the implementation and take corrective action in case of transgressions of the DPSPs.

However, not all voices resonated in favor of these proposals. Opponents contended that the introduction of Draft Article 30 seemed to inject the influence of a particular political ideology into the constitutional framework.

In response to the multifaceted debate, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee provided clarity. He underscored that, beyond establishing political democracy, the Constitution aspired to promote economic democracy. Importantly, he emphasized that there were diverse paths to achieve economic democracy, including socialism and communism, and the Constitution deliberately refrained from taking a definitive stance on the preferred route.

Crucially, the issue of implementation, though acknowledged, was not directly addressed in this particular debate but had been previously discussed (refer to the Article 37 debate summary). Ultimately, on the same day, the Constituent Assembly decided to adopt Draft Article 30 without introducing any amendments. This decision marked a crucial moment, reflecting the delicate balance struck between diverse ideological perspectives and the overarching goal of shaping a constitution that embodied the aspirations for both political and economic democracy.

18) Certain Principles of Policy to be Followed by the State (Article 39)

The Constituent Assembly convened on November 22, 1948, to deliberate on Draft Article 31, later crystallized as Article 39 in the Constitution of India 1950. This article assumed paramount importance as it mandated the State to safeguard and enhance the economic well-being of citizens, with a specific emphasis on the empowerment of the weaker sections of society.

The focal point of the assembly discourse was the strong presence of socialist members who harbored concerns that the drafted clauses did not adequately embed socialist principles into the constitutional fabric. They contended that the language employed in the clauses inadvertently allowed private interests to acquire ‘ownership and control of material resources,’ a stance perceived as incompatible with the overarching goal of ensuring the economic welfare of citizens. Consequently, amendments were proposed to inject specificity into the clauses. These amendments sought to elucidate the scope of ‘material resources’ and explicitly stipulate that only the State, acting on behalf of the people, could wield control over these resources.

Another member expressed apprehension regarding clause 3, which directed the State to forestall the concentration of wealth. In response, an amendment was tabled, positing that unless the Assembly intended to establish a communist state, the concentration of wealth and resultant inequities would be inevitable. The crux of the argument pivoted not on the concentration of wealth itself, but rather on the undue concentration of wealth.

As the debate unfolded, a pivotal clarification emerged, emphasizing that the deliberate wording of the Draft Article’s clauses in a general and expansive manner was intentional. The economic system advocated by the socialist faction aligned with the overarching principles encapsulated in the Draft Article, rendering the proposed amendments unnecessary.

19) Fundamental Duties (Article 51A)

Respect for Constitution and National Symbols: Citizens of India should adhere to the Constitution, showing respect for its principles, ideals, and institutions, as well as for the National Flag and Anthem.

Adherence to Freedom Struggle Ideals: It is the duty of citizens to embrace and follow the noble ideals that served as inspiration during the national struggle for freedom.

Sovereignty and Unity: Citizens are obligated to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.

National Service and Defense: There is a duty to defend the country and engage in national service when called upon to do so.

Promotion of Harmony and Brotherhood: Subjects should work towards promoting harmony and a sense of common or garden club among the different population of India,  excelling religious,  verbal, and indigenous differences.  also, they should renounce practices that undermine the  quality of women.

Preservation of Composite Culture: The duty includes valuing and preserving the rich heritage of India’s composite culture.

Environmental Responsibility: subjects are assigned with  guarding and enhancing the natural  terrain, encompassing  timbers, lakes, gutters, wildlife, and establishing compassion for abiding  brutes. Cultivation of Scientific Temper and Humanism: It is essential to cultivate the scientific temper, humanism, and a spirit of inquiry and reform.

Protection of Public Property: Citizens should safeguard public property and reject the use of violence.

Striving for Excellence: There’s an  duty to strive for  distinction in both individual and collaborative  trials, contributing to the nation’s  nonstop  process and  acquirement.  

Educational Responsibility: For those who are parents or guardians, providing educational opportunities for children or wards between the ages of six and fourteen is a duty.

20) The President of India (Article 52)

The Constituent Assembly delved into the deliberation of Draft Article 41 on December 10, 1948, which serves as the inaugural provision of Part V – The Union, stating simply that India shall possess a President.

During the discussion, a proposal emerged suggesting the inclusion of a description portraying the President as the ‘Chief Executive and Head of State’ within the Article. Advocates for this proposition contended that it would enhance the President’s standing and signify that the people’s sovereignty was vested in the office. However, opposing voices argued against this proposal, deeming it inappropriate as it seemingly hinted at a presidential system, conflicting with the adopted parliamentary system outlined in the Draft Constitution.

Another assembly member raised a query about the exclusion of the term ‘Rashtrapati,’ which was present in earlier versions of the Draft Article. The concern was whether this omission reflected a negative attitude towards Hindi. The clarification provided was that the term was omitted in anticipation of preparing a Hindi version of the Draft Constitution, where ‘Rashtrapati’ could be appropriately utilized.

Concluding the discourse, the Constituent Assembly opted to adopt Draft Article 41 without introducing any amendments.

Also Read: ROLE AND POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA : ARTICLE 52 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

21) Executive Power of the Union (Article 53)

The Constituent Assembly engaged in discussions on Draft Article 42 on both December 10, 1948, and October 16, 1949. This draft delineated that the executive power of the Union rested with the President of India.

During the deliberation, one member suggested a modification to explicitly state in the article that the President’s executive power was contingent on the advice and assistance of the Union Government. This clarification aimed to underscore the Assembly’s choice of a parliamentary system over a presidential one.

Another proposal sought to incorporate ‘on behalf of the people of India’ in the first clause, emphasizing that sovereignty and popular will originated from the people. Drawing a contrast with the Government of India Act 1935, the member stressed the need for the Constitution to specify that executive power was exercised on behalf of the people, unlike the earlier act that mentioned exercising power on behalf of the ‘King-Emperor of India.’

An exhaustive proposal outlining all the President’s powers and responsibilities was also put forth, arguing that for a new nation like India, clarity in the President’s constitutional powers was crucial. However, this move faced opposition, with some members, including one from the Drafting Committee, asserting that it contradicted the Assembly’s decision to adopt a parliamentary form of democracy.

On December 10, 1948, the Assembly adopted the Draft Article without amendments. However, discussions were reopened on October 16, 1949, where the Drafting Committee introduced a minor amendment allowing the President to exercise power through subordinates. Some members deemed this redundant, asserting that it was understood the President would act through ‘agents.’ However, the Drafting Committee clarified that the President would not personally execute executive power but would do so at the direction of individuals accountable to the legislature. The Assembly accepted the amendment, finalizing the adoption of the Draft Article.

22) Election of President (Article 54)

The Constituent Assembly engaged in discussions on Draft Article 43 on both December 10 and 13, 1948. This draft outlined the election process for the President, involving an electoral college comprising members from both houses of parliament and elected members of state legislatures.

A pivotal aspect of the debate centered on an amendment proposing the adoption of adult franchise in presidential elections. The member advocating for this amendment argued that the Draft Article fell short in adequately representing the people’s will. Supporting his proposal, he contended that direct elections were crucial to ensure the President truly reflected the collective sovereignty of the people. His amendment aimed to prevent the President from becoming a mere product of party majorities and shield them from the uncertainties of parliamentary fortunes.

However, the proposal encountered strong opposition. One member highlighted that extending voting rights to ‘adult citizens’ would permit even those citizens disqualified from general elections to participate in presidential elections. This, he argued, contradicted the essence of a parliamentary form of government, which presupposes responsible government entrusted to elected representatives rather than citizens directly. Another member expressed concerns that direct elections would transform the President into a ‘party man,’ requiring active campaigning and party support, akin to the King of England.

In response, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee addressed the practical challenges of the proposed amendment. Firstly, he emphasized the impracticality of managing a large electorate for direct presidential elections. Secondly, he underscored the administrative complications, such as the lack of polling staff, potential bribery and corruption, and susceptibility to election manipulation. Thirdly, he emphasized that, given the symbolic role of the President in the Indian Constitution, there was no imperative for adult franchise-based elections.

Ultimately, the Assembly rejected the proposed amendment and adopted the Draft Article with minor modifications.

23) Manner of election of President (Article 55)

The provisions outlined in this article delineate the principles governing the election of the President, with a focus on achieving uniformity in the representation scale among different states. The overarching objective is to ensure parity between states and the Union in this electoral process. The methodology for determining the number of votes each elected member of Parliament and Legislative Assembly is entitled to cast is meticulously detailed.

Firstly, the scale of representation for states in the presidential election is to be as uniform as practical. To attain this uniformity, the number of votes allocated to each elected member of a Legislative Assembly is determined based on the population of the respective state. Specifically, each member receives votes equivalent to the multiples of one thousand obtained by dividing the state’s population by the total number of elected assembly members. If the remainder from this calculation is not less than five hundred, an additional vote is accorded to each member.

Furthermore, the voting power of elected members of both Houses of Parliament is determined by dividing the total votes assigned to Legislative Assembly members by the combined total of elected members in both parliamentary houses. In this calculation, fractions exceeding one-half are counted as one, while other fractions are disregarded.

Importantly, the election process for the President adheres to the system of proportional representation through the single transferable vote. This entails a secret ballot, ensuring the confidentiality of the voting process. The term “population” in this context refers to the population determined by the last preceding census, and the figures from this census guide the application of these provisions.

A proviso clarifies that, until the publication of figures from the first census conducted after the year 2026, the reference to the last preceding census with published figures pertains to the 1971 census. This temporal consideration ensures clarity in the application of population-related metrics until updated census data becomes available. In essence, these provisions aim to establish a fair and systematic approach to the election of the President, incorporating population considerations and the principles of proportional representation.

[All the information about constitution of india] [Know all about constitution of india]

24) The States (Article 152)

On the 30th of May 1949, the Constituent Assembly engaged in a deliberation concerning Draft Article 128, subsequently designated as Article 152 in the finalized Constitution. This article assumed particular significance as it sought to elucidate the connotation of the term ‘State’ as employed within Part VI of the Constitution of India.

During the deliberative process, the Draft Article encountered no substantial opposition or debate, and it was consequently embraced and endorsed by the Assembly members on that very day. The acceptance without significant discourse underscores the consensus among the framers regarding the formulation and articulation of the term ‘State’ within the constitutional framework.

However, it is noteworthy that the journey of this article did not conclude with its adoption by the Constituent Assembly. Subsequent to its initial acceptance, the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act of 1956 introduced amendments to Article 152. The nature and specifics of these amendments are not delineated in the provided information, leaving the exact alterations undisclosed. Nevertheless, this subsequent modification implies a dynamic and evolving constitutional landscape, wherein amendments are deemed necessary to address changing circumstances or perspectives.

25) Governors of States (Article 153)

On the 30th of May 1949, the Constituent Assembly engaged in a deliberation concerning Draft Article 129, subsequently designated as Article 153 in the finalized Constitution. This article laid down the provision that each state within the Indian Union would be endowed with a Governor.

During the discussion, a member presented an amendment suggesting that there should be at least one Governor “from each of the States in Part I of the First Schedule.” The rationale behind this proposition was to ensure equitable representation of all states in government services. Despite the endorsement of the principle of adequate representation, another member voiced the opinion that the question of representation should be addressed more comprehensively during the discourse on the appointment of Governors.

An alternative perspective emerged during the debate, with one member contending that the position of Governors was unnecessary. According to this viewpoint, administrative control over the states should rest with the central government, and the concept of provincial autonomy, rooted in the Government of India Act, 1935, was a vestige of colonial rule, indicating a lack of trust in the national government. Although this line of argument found support from some quarters, others countered it, deeming it “out of order” as the fundamental principles of the Constitution had already been established. The assembly, having previously adopted the semi-federal structure, dismissed the proposition of a unitary constitution.

Ultimately, the proposed amendment mandating representation from each state was rejected. The Constituent Assembly proceeded to adopt Draft Article 129 on the specified date. However, it is noteworthy that the journey of this article did not conclude with its adoption. The Constitution (7th Amendment) Act of 1956 brought about subsequent amendments to Article 153, marking a testament to the evolving nature of the constitutional framework in response to changing circumstances or perspectives.

26) Executive power of State (Article 154)

The discourse surrounding Draft Article 130, later designated as Article 154 in the Constitution of India, unfolded across two significant sessions of the Constituent Assembly, on the 30th of May 1949 and the 16th of October 1949. This article delineated the conferment of executive power to the Governor of a state.

During the deliberations, a member advocated for an amendment to clause (1), suggesting the replacement of the term ‘may’ with ‘shall’. The rationale behind this proposal was to assert that the Governor was bound to exercise their powers in accordance with the Constitution and the law, rather than having the discretion to choose otherwise.

Another proposed amendment aimed to emphasize that the Governor’s exercise of power was done ‘on behalf of the people’, underlining a commitment to representing the collective will and interests of the populace.

A third member raised concerns about the term ‘transfer’ in clause (2) and suggested substituting it with ‘authorize or empower’. The argument posited was that functions were inherently linked to a specific role and could not be outright transferred.

However, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee opposed these proposed amendments, noting that the existing Draft Article mirrored Draft Article 42 (later Article 53) pertaining to the executive powers of the Union. He underscored that similar amendments had been rejected during the debates on Draft Article 42.

Ultimately, all three proposed amendments were negatived by the Assembly. The Draft Article, in its original form, was adopted on the 30th of May 1949. Subsequently, there was a revision to the language of Draft Article 42. A member of the Drafting Committee suggested substituting the phrase ‘shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him’ with ‘may be exercised by him’, aligning it with the language used in Draft Article 42. This amendment found acceptance on the 16th of October 1949, marking an evolution in the formulation of this constitutional provision.

27) Appointment of Governor (Article 155)

The deliberations surrounding Draft Article 131, later designated as Article 155 in the Constitution, unfolded during sessions on the 30th and 31st of May 1949. This Draft Article presented two versions, one outlining the procedure for the election of the Governor and the other detailing the process of appointment. The crux of the debates centered on the mode of selection for the Governor, with proponents advocating either election or appointment.

Advocates for the election mechanism pointed to a resolution passed by the Assembly two years prior, asserting that it stipulated the Governor’s selection through the electoral process. One member argued that an appointed Governor, hailing from any state, might prove an inefficient administrator lacking knowledge of the local people and language.

While some members favored the system of appointment, they expressed dissatisfaction with the procedural details outlined in the Draft Article. Emphasizing the need for provincial autonomy and effective state cabinet governance, proponents of appointment argued that an impartial constitutional head was essential. They blamed the  proffered assignment process from a  seeker panel,  thinking it facilitative to  body within the party. The  passion was  resounded by a member of the Drafting Committee,  pressing the Governor’s  part as a  insightful counselor,  counsel, and a  middleman in  country affairs. The Prime Minister supported these views,  competing that assignment would  insure the Governor’s  disinterestedness from  country politics, allowing fair and  unprejudiced operation.  Another member suggested vesting the power of appointment in the President.

A comprehensive amendment was proposed to replace the entire Draft Article with a succinct statement: ‘The Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal.’ The rationale behind this amendment was to streamline the procedure, providing the President with unrestricted authority to appoint a Governor. This amendment garnered widespread support within the Assembly, including members of the Drafting Committee.

Ultimately, the Assembly voted in favor of appointing the Governor, accepting the proposed amendment. The amended Draft Article, reflecting the choice for appointment, was formally adopted on the 31st of May 1949, solidifying the method for the Governor’s selection in the constitutional framework.

28) Application of provisions of Part VI to States in Part B of the First Schedule (Article 238)

Article 238 did not find a place in the initial Draft Constitution of India in 1948. The crucial discussions regarding this article unfolded during sessions on the 12th and 13th of October 1949, prompted by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, who proposed the insertion of Draft Article 211A.

During the deliberations on Draft Article 211A, a few amendments were introduced, refining its content. Despite these modifications, the adoption of this draft article did not spark significant debates or contentious discussions within the Assembly.

The essence of Draft Article 211A, which later became Article 238 in the Constitution, was embraced by the Constituent Assembly without substantial opposition. The details of the proposed article, along with any fine-tuning through amendments, were assimilated smoothly into the constitutional framework during the Assembly’s proceedings.

However, the journey of Article 238 in the constitutional landscape was marked by a subsequent development. The Constitution underwent an amendment process with the enactment of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act in 1956. As a consequence of this constitutional amendment, Article 238 faced omission from the text of the Constitution.

This act of omission in 1956 reflected the evolving nature of constitutional provisions and the responsiveness of the framers to the changing needs and circumstances of the nation. The decision to exclude Article 238 demonstrated the dynamic and adaptive character of the Indian Constitution, as it responded to the evolving requirements of governance and legal structures.

In essence, the absence of Article 238 in the later iterations of the Constitution underscored the flexibility embedded in the constitutional framework, allowing for modifications and refinements to align with the evolving vision and governance principles of the newly independent India.

29) Administration of Union territories (Article 239)

(1) Unless Parliament determines otherwise through legislation, each Union territory shall be under the administration of the President. The President, at his discretion, shall appoint an administrator with a designation of his choosing to oversee the territory.

In this arrangement, the administrator acts as the President’s representative, and the extent of their authority is determined by the President’s judgment. The President may delegate administrative responsibilities to the appointed administrator in alignment with the President’s specified directives.

(2) Despite the provisions outlined in Part VI of the Constitution of India, the President retains the authority to designate the Governor of a State as the administrator of a neighboring Union territory. In such instances, the appointed Governor-administrator exercises their functions independently of the State’s Council of Ministers.

This unique provision allows for a seamless integration of administrative functions between States and adjoining Union territories. By appointing a Governor as the administrator, the President ensures a coherent and efficient administration, drawing on the experience and leadership qualities of the Governor.

The Governor, when serving as the administrator, assumes a dual role, balancing the responsibilities of overseeing the Union territory with maintaining an independent stance from their State’s Council of Ministers.

30) Creation of local Legislatures or Council of Ministers or both for certain Union territories (Article 239A)

Parliament holds the authority to enact legislation establishing governance structures for the Union territory of Puducherry. This legislation may encompass the creation of a governing body, designated as a Legislature, tailored for the Union territory. This Legislature can be composed of members who are either elected by the people or appointed through a combination of nomination and election. Alternatively, Parliament may institute a Council of Ministers for Puducherry. The constitution, powers, and functions of these bodies, whether the Legislature, the Council of Ministers, or both, are subject to the specifications outlined in the law enacted by Parliament.

Importantly, any legislation crafted for this purpose does not fall under the purview of constitutional amendments as defined in Article 368. Despite potentially containing provisions that modify or impact the Constitution, such laws will not be considered amendments to the Constitution. This distinctive status allows Parliament the flexibility to institute governance structures in Puducherry without adhering to the formal amendment procedures stipulated in Article 368.

31) Special provisions with respect to Delhi (Article 239 AA)

As of the commencement of the Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991, the Union territory of Delhi is designated as the National Capital Territory of Delhi (referred to as the National Capital Territory). The administrator, appointed under Article 239, is now titled the Lieutenant Governor.

The National Capital Territory is endowed with a Legislative Assembly, where members are elected directly from territorial constituencies within the territory. Parliament has the authority to regulate various aspects of this Assembly, including the total number of seats, reservations for Scheduled Castes, and the division of constituencies, through legislation.

The Legislative Assembly is empowered to enact laws for the National Capital Territory on subjects specified in the State List or the Concurrent List, subject to certain exceptions. However, if there is a conflict between a law made by the Assembly and one made by Parliament on the same matter, the latter prevails. Notably, if a law made by the Legislative Assembly receives the President’s assent after being reserved for consideration, it prevails in the National Capital Territory.

A Council of Ministers, headed by the Chief Minister, aids the Lieutenant Governor in matters where the Legislative Assembly has legislative authority. In case of a disagreement between the Lieutenant Governor and the Ministers, the matter is referred to the President for a decision.

The Chief Minister and other Ministers are appointed by the President, and they hold office at the pleasure of the President. The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly.

Parliament is empowered to enact laws to supplement the provisions outlined, and such laws are not considered constitutional amendments under Article 368. The provisions of Article 239B, pertaining to Puducherry, are applicable to the National Capital Territory, the Lieutenant Governor, and the Legislative Assembly, with appropriate modifications. Any reference in Article 239B to “clause (1) of article 239A” is considered a reference to this article or Article 239AB, as the case may be.

32) Provision in case of failure of constitutional machinery (Article 239 AB)

In the event that the President, based on a report from the Lieutenant Governor or other considerations, determines that circumstances have arisen hindering the administration of the National Capital Territory in line with the stipulations of Article 239AA or any law enacted under that article, or if it is deemed necessary or expedient for the proper governance of the National Capital Territory, the President holds the authority to issue an order suspending the operation of any provision within Article 239AA or all or certain provisions of any law established in accordance with that article.

This suspension is applicable for a defined period and subject to specified conditions as outlined in the law. Additionally, the President possesses the discretion to institute incidental and consequential provisions that he deems essential or expedient to facilitate the administration of the National Capital Territory in accordance with the provisions articulated in both Article 239 and Article 239AA. This provision allows for a temporary suspension of certain legal aspects to address exceptional situations or exigencies and provides the flexibility for the President to make associated provisions to ensure the effective governance of the National Capital Territory during such periods.

33) The Panchayats (Article 243A, B, C)

In the Draft Constitution of 1948, Draft Article 215 (Article 243) pertained to territories listed within Part IV of the First Schedule. On September 16, 1949, a member proposed an amendment to the Draft Article, suggesting that these territories should be under the direct or indirect control of the President. The proposed amendment granted the President the authority to shift any part of the Union of India to Part IV of the First Schedule and enact rules or regulations to ensure peace in the specified territory. Interestingly, this amendment was accepted with minimal deliberation.

Subsequently, the original provisions of Part IX, as envisaged in the Draft Article, were omitted from the Constitution through the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act of 1956.

The present-day Article 243, in its current form, was introduced through the Constitution (Seventy-Third) Amendment Act of 1992. This transformation reflects the dynamic evolution of constitutional provisions over the years, where amendments and omissions have shaped the framework of territorial governance and peacekeeping measures within the Union of India. The history of these amendments showcases the ongoing process of refining and adapting constitutional elements to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the nation.

34) The Municipalities (Article 243 P,Q,R,S )

In simpler terms, a “Committee” refers to a group established under Article 243S, while a “District” is a regional division within a State. A “Metropolitan area” is an extensive region with a population of ten lakhs or more, spanning multiple districts and comprising two or more Municipalities, Panchayats, or adjacent areas, as designated by the Governor. The “Municipal area” defines the territorial boundaries of a Municipality, as proclaimed by the Governor. A “Municipality” is a self-governing institution formed under Article 243Q, and a “Panchayat” is an assembly constituted under Article 243B. Finally, “Population” refers to the count established in the most recent census, with published figures guiding this determination.

35) The Co-operative Societies (Article 243ZH)

In this context:

(a) “Authorized person” refers to an individual identified as such in Article 243ZQ;

(b) “Board” denotes the board of directors or the governing body of a cooperative society, irrespective of its name, responsible for directing and controlling the management of the society’s affairs;

(c) “Co-operative society” signifies a society that is registered or considered to be registered under the prevailing laws related to cooperative societies in any given State;

(d) “Multi-State co-operative society” characterizes a society with objectives not limited to a single State, registered or deemed to be registered under the existing laws pertaining to such cooperatives;

(e) “Office bearer” includes a President, Vice-President, Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Secretary, or Treasurer of a cooperative society, encompassing any other person elected by the board of any cooperative society;

(f) “Registrar” refers to the Central Registrar appointed by the Central Government for multi-State co-operative societies and the Registrar for cooperative societies designated by the State Government in accordance with the legislation enacted by the State Legislature regarding cooperative societies;

(g) “State Act” encompasses any legislation formulated by the Legislature of a State;

(h) “State level co-operative society” designates a cooperative society whose operational jurisdiction extends across the entirety of a State, as defined in the legislation enacted by the State Legislature.

[Know all about constitution of india]

36) Administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas (Article 244)

On the 19th of August 1949, Draft Article 215B underwent deliberations, having originally been a constituent of Article 190 within the Draft Constitution of India, 1948. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee, in his role, advocated for the introduction of Draft Article 215B.

The essence of this amendment was to reposition the provisions initially housed in Draft Article 190 into a distinct Part VIIIA (later recognized as Part X) within the Draft Constitution. A member proposed an addition to incorporate the phrase “until Parliament by law otherwise provides,” intending to grant Parliament the authority to modify this special provision through a constitutional amendment. However, this proposition encountered dissent and was not embraced. Despite this, the Amendment was ultimately adopted.

Subsequently, Article 244 of the Constitution of India underwent further amendments, facilitated by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, and the Constitution (Forty-ninth Amendment) Act. These subsequent modifications reflected the evolving nature of constitutional provisions, illustrating the dynamic and responsive character of the constitutional framework to meet the evolving needs and circumstances of the nation.

37) Relations between the Union and the States (Article 245)

The relinquishment of Draft Composition 216 reflected the assembly’s collaborative objective to outline the spatial reach of administrative and country ordinances, icing a symphonious and operative legit
system for the governance of the nation. This uncontentious relinquishment underlined the participated understanding among the assembly ingredients descrying the territorial operation of legislative enactments, contributing to the foundational establishment of India’s indigenous order.

38) Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States (Article 246)

On June 13, 1949, a crucial debate unfolded on Draft Article 217 (Article 246, Constitution of India, 1950), laying the foundation for India’s federal structure. This article delineated the legislative powers of the Union Parliament and State Legislatures. The Union Parliament was empowered to legislate on subjects listed in the Union List, while State Legislatures held the authority over matters specified in the State List. Both entities shared concurrent jurisdiction over subjects enumerated in the Concurrent List. Additionally, the Union Parliament possessed the prerogative to legislate on matters not covered by any of the three lists.

Despite the brevity of the debate, a member expressed dissatisfaction with the arrangement of clauses in the Draft Article. He proposed a strategic amendment, suggesting a swap between Clauses 2 and 3 to enhance the logical coherence of the article. Furthermore, the member advocated for an inclusion stating that the legislative authority of the Union Parliament and State Legislatures should extend to essential matters for the effective exercise of their designated powers in the three lists. Although there were no substantial counterarguments, the proposed amendments faced rejection by the Assembly.

Ultimately, on June 13, 1949, the Assembly adopted the Draft Article with some minor adjustments. This pivotal moment solidified the constitutional framework, shaping the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States in India.

39) Power of Parliament to provide for the establishment of certain additional courts (Article 247)

On the 13th of June 1949, the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly focused on Draft Article 219 (Article 247, Constitution of India 1950). This particular article vested in Parliament the authority to institute supplementary courts with the aim of enhancing the effective administration of laws. Notably, the discussion surrounding this draft was notably brief, marked by the absence of substantial debate or disagreement among the assembly members. Consequently, Draft Article 219 was embraced without any amendments or modifications.

The essence of Draft Article 219 lay in its allocation of power to the Parliament, endowing it with the prerogative to establish additional courts as deemed necessary for the more efficient implementation and enforcement of legal provisions.

This  qualification was strategically  drafted to  grease an  nimble and responsive  legit system, aligning with the overarching  ideal of  icing the smooth functioning of the judicial  outfit in India.   The lack of  physical debate on this  personal draft indicates a  agreement among the assembly  ingredients  descrying the necessity and  significance of empowering Parliament to take  visionary measures in establishing courts that could  feed to the evolving  requirements of the  legit geography. By  espousing Draft Composition 219 without  emendations, the Constituent Assembly demonstrated a collaborative  mention of the significance of a  adjustable and adaptive judicial  structure to meet the dynamic  expostulations of administering justice in the  incipient Indian democracy. 

40) Interpretation (Article 264)

The proposed Draft Article aimed to elucidate and define the terms ‘Finance Commission’ and ‘State’ within the constitutional framework. Notably, the deliberations on this draft did not witness significant debate among the members. On the 4th of August 1949, Draft Article 247 was embraced and formally adopted, signifying the consensus reached within the Constituent Assembly on its content.

This article played a crucial role in providing clarity and interpretation regarding the roles and attributes associated with the ‘Finance Commission’ and the concept of the ‘State’ as delineated in the constitutional context. The absence of substantial debate suggests a shared understanding among the assembly members regarding the necessity and appropriateness of the provisions outlined in Draft Article 247.

However, it is noteworthy that the journey of Draft Article 247 did not conclude with its initial adoption. Subsequently, the constitutional landscape evolved, leading to the substitution of Draft Article 247 through the enactment of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956.

41) Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law  (Article 265)

On the 4th of August 1949, the Constituent Assembly managed Draft Article 248, which specially silhouetted the generalities of’ earnings of India’ and’ earnings of country.’ During the conversations, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee set forth a transformative offer to change Draft Composition 248 with a new qualification, introducing a groundbreaking principle” No duty shall be levied or collected except by administration of law.” This proffered qualification leveled at precluding the arbitrary duty or collection of levies by country authorities, thereby featuring the necessity for legit authorization in all duty- related matters. This visionary relief redounded in the rechristening of the Draft Composition from 248 to 248A.

The significance of this correction lay in its establishment of a foundational principle, buttressing the rule of law in the sphere of taxation. By explicitly stipulating that levies could only be assessed or collected under the permission of law, this indigenous qualification sought to inseminate responsibility and loveliness in financial practices. Remarkably, the stir for this physical revise was espoused fleetly and seamlessly on the same day, the 4th of August 1949, without driving any physical debate among the assembly ingredients. This effective relinquishment underlined the resonance of the proffered principles with the overarching unreality of the Constituent Assembly for a precisely and restrained financial system in the incipient Indian republic.

42) Consolidated Funds and public accounts of India and of the States (Article 266)

The inception of Draft Article 248A marked a pivotal moment in the constitutional deliberations of the Constituent Assembly on August 4, 1949. This particular article played a foundational role in establishing the Consolidated Fund of India and the Consolidated Funds of the States. Under its provisions, all funds generated or received by both the Union and State governments were mandated to be deposited into these consolidated funds.

The essence of this constitutional provision aimed at centralizing and streamlining the financial operations of the nation and its constituent states. By creating  devoted consolidated  finances, the Draft Composition sought to  insure  translucency and responsibility in the  operation of public finances.  Notably, the adoption of Draft Article 248A unfolded without substantial debate, indicating a shared recognition among the assembly members regarding the importance and coherence of the proposed financial framework.

43) Freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse (Article 301)

The emergence of Draft Article 274A (Article 301, Constitution of India 1950) was not part of the initial Draft Constitution of 1948. The discourse surrounding this article commenced on June 15, 1949, and culminated in thorough discussions on September 8, 1949. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee proposed the integration of a new segment, Part XA, into the Constitution of India, housing Draft Article 274A as its inaugural provision. This marked the initiation of a series of articles addressing the nuanced aspects of trade, commerce, and intercourse within the territorial boundaries of India.

Draft Article 274A, at its core, stipulated that trade, commerce, and intercourse across the nation would be unfettered, subject only to the provisions delineated in Part XA. The rationale behind this addition was to consolidate disparate provisions related to trade and commerce scattered throughout the Draft Constitution into a cohesive framework.

During deliberations, a Member proposed an amendment to specify that the freedom in trade, commerce, and intercourse should be subject to the entire Constitution, not solely Part XA. However, this amendment met with rejection by the Assembly.

A notable point of contention arose as some Members expressed concerns about potential dilution of the initially guaranteed fundamental right to engage in trade and commerce freely, as outlined in Draft Article 16. They observed that Draft Article 274A imposed additional restrictions compared to the earlier provision.

Conversely, other Members supported the inclusion of Part XA, emphasizing the need to consolidate all trade and commerce provisions within a unified framework.

After an extensive debate, the Constituent Assembly reached a consensus, and on September 8, 1949, Draft Article 274A was officially adopted. This marked a significant stride in codifying regulations related to trade, commerce, and intercourse, and showcased the Assembly’s commitment to crafting a comprehensive and coherent constitutional framework.

44) Power of Parliament to Impose Restrictions on Trade, Commerce and Intercourse (Article 302)

Draft Article 274B (Article 302, Constitution of India 1950) was not part of the original Draft Constitution in 1948. The introduction and discussion of this draft took place on September 8, 1949. In a strategic move, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee proposed the inclusion of a new segment, Part XA, within the Constitution, and Draft Article 274B found its place therein. This article conferred upon the Parliament the authority, through legislation, to impose restrictions on the freedom of trade and commerce within specific regions of the country, as well as on inter-State trade and commerce, in the larger interest of the public.

During the deliberations, a Member initiated three amendments aimed at altering certain words and phrases within Draft Article 274B, albeit without fundamentally changing its intended meaning. Despite these proposed amendments, the Constituent Assembly opted to reject them.

Ultimately, on the same day of its introduction, Draft Article 274B was formally adopted into the Constitution of India without undergoing any modifications.

45) Restrictions on the legislative powers of the Union and of the States with regard to trade and commerce (Article 303)

Draft Article 274C, which later became Article 303 in the Constitution of India 1950, was not initially part of the Draft Constitution of 1948. The assembly engaged in a thorough discussion on this draft on September 8, 1949. This article contained important prohibitions that prevented both Congress and state legislatures from enacting  trade and commerce laws that discriminated against or favored one or more states. However, it conferred upon the Parliament the authority to enact laws if deemed necessary to address the issue of goods scarcity within a particular territory.

During deliberations, one Member voiced concerns about potential misuse of Parliament’s power to address goods scarcity, proposing that such authority should be confined to temporary emergency situations and applicable only during the period of the emergency. This suggestion aimed at preventing the abuse of power that could adversely impact the general public.

Another Member proposed an alteration to the draft, advocating for the restriction of State Legislatures, rather than Parliament, from making discriminatory laws on trade and commerce without Parliament’s consent. Additionally, he suggested granting State Legislatures the ability to impose reasonable restrictions on trade and commerce within their jurisdictions, contingent upon prior approval from Parliament, based on grounds of public interest.

However, both these proposed amendments were met with rejection by the Assembly, and Draft Article 274C was adopted without alterations on the same day. This decision demonstrated Congress’s commitmen  to creating a framework that balances national autonomy  with the overarching goal of preventing discriminatory trade practices. The adoption of Draft Article 274C on September 8, 1949, after substantial debate, reflected the assembly’s careful consideration and consensus-building regarding the regulation of trade and commerce to ensure fairness and public welfare.

46) Restrictions on trade, commerce and intercourse among States (Article 304)

Article 274D, later designated as Article 304 in the Constitution of India 1950, did not find a place in the original Draft Constitution of 1948. However, on September 8, 1949, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee introduced this pivotal article alongside others within Part XA.

This particular article vested State Governments with the authority to impose restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse. Nevertheless, the introduction of Article 274D sparked deliberations among assembly members. Some contended that the rights associated with trade, commerce, and intercourse should be deemed ‘absolute,’ only subject to limitations during situations of scarcity or national emergency. They argued that allowing State Governments to formulate specific rules, providing preferential treatment to their residents, could undermine the concept of national unity, especially if contrasted with overarching policies set by the Central Government.

Critics also raised concerns about the potential conflict between Article 274D and other constitutional rights, such as the right to move freely throughout India, the right to settle anywhere in the country, the right to acquire and hold property anywhere, and the right to practice any profession or business across the nation.

However, the critiques were rebutted on the premise that complete freedom in trade and commerce could not be absolute and required some regulatory direction from the government. A member argued for granting State Governments a reasonable degree of authority to restrict trade and commerce, emphasizing that the ultimate power to establish uniform national policies would remain with the Parliament, and States could not contradict them. The presence of a safeguard in the form of mandatory presidential assent further reassured the Assembly.

On the same day, the proposed new Part XA, encompassing Article 274D, was adopted by the Assembly. Subsequently, the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act of 1956 amended the article, introducing provisions related to Union Territories under Article 304(a). This comprehensive constitutional framework illustrated a delicate balance between preserving essential freedoms and empowering the government to regulate trade and commerce for the collective welfare.

47) Services under the Union and the States (Article 308)

On September 7, 1949, the Constituent Assembly engaged in a discussion on Draft Article 281, which eventually became Article 308 in the Constitution of India 1950. This particular article served the crucial function of defining the term “State” within the context of Part XII of the Draft Constitution, delineating its scope and application.

During the deliberations, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee proposed a substitution for Draft Article 281, presenting a new version that incorporated a few language modifications. Strikingly, the proposed changes did not elicit any substantial debate or discussion among the assembly members.

In a swift and efficient process, the motion for the substitution of Draft Article 281 was adopted without the need for extensive deliberation on the same day. Consequently, the revised Draft Article, with its nuanced language alterations, seamlessly found its place in the Constitution.

The uneventful adoption of this constitutional provision underscored the assembly’s collective understanding and agreement on the definition of “State” as outlined in Part XII.

[Know all about constitution of india]

48) Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State (Article 309)

On the 7th of September 1949, the Constituent Assembly engaged in a deliberation on Draft Article 282, a significant provision that outlined the regulations governing the recruitment and conditions of service for individuals serving the Union or a State. During this discussion, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee proposed a substitution for Draft Article 282, presenting a refined version for consideration.

The proposed replacement, now articulated as Article 309 in the Constitution of India 1950, delineated the authority of the appropriate Legislature to enact laws governing the recruitment and service conditions of individuals appointed to public services and posts associated with the affairs of the Union or any State. The provision also incorporated a crucial proviso empowering the President, in the case of Union affairs, and the Governor or Ruler of a State, in the case of State affairs, to make temporary appointments until the enactment of specific legislation by the appropriate Legislature. Furthermore, it stipulated that any rules framed during this interim period would be subject to the provisions of such legislation.

Remarkably, the motion for the substitution of Draft Article 282 with the proposed version was swiftly adopted without extensive debate or discussion.

49) Tenure of office of persons serving the Union or a State (Article 310)

Draft Article 282A, later known as Article 310 in the Constitution of India 1950, was not part of the original Draft Constitution of 1948. On September 7, 1949, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee introduced this significant article, shaping the tenure of office for civil servants in the Union and States, as well as members of the defence services.

This provision explicitly stated that these officers would hold office at the discretion of the President of India or the Governor of the respective State. Additionally, it incorporated a crucial clause safeguarding individuals not belonging to the all-India civil services or defence services and appointed under a specific contract. In the event of termination without any fault on the part of the service provider, the Draft Article mandated compensation for such individuals.

During the deliberations, a Member proposed an amendment intending to restrict the tenure of these officers to the age of 68, replacing the discretionary power of the President. However, this amendment was withdrawn, and an alternative suggestion was put forth. The revised proposal recommended that the discretion for services at the State-level should also rest with the President, replacing the Governor in this decision-making process.

This nuanced discussion reflected the assembly’s consideration of the delicate balance between granting discretion to the highest authorities and introducing reasonable limitations on the tenure of civil servants and defence service members. The withdrawal of the age-based limitation amendment suggested a recognition of the complexity in defining a specific age limit for all circumstances. Instead, the emphasis shifted to a more nuanced approach, advocating for uniform discretion at the central and state levels.

50) Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State (Article 311)

Draft Article 282B, later recognized as Article 311 in the Constitution of India 1950, was notably absent in the original Draft Constitution of 1948. The Drafting Committee Chairman introduced this crucial article on September 7, 1949, delineating the procedures for dismissing a member of the Union and State civil services.

According to Draft Article 282B, a civil service member could not be dismissed by an inferior officer, and prior to dismissal or reduction in rank, the individual had the right to explain themselves. However, three specific instances were outlined where this opportunity might be denied: (i) due to security reasons, (ii) practical issues, or (iii) dismissal resulting from a criminal conviction.

On September 8, 1949, the Constituent Assembly engaged in discussions on Draft Article 282B. A Member proposed that only the Union Public Service Commission or State Public Service Commission should have the authority to dismiss a civil service officer, emphasizing the need for bureaucratic independence from ministerial control. Another Member raised concerns about the broad grounds for denying the opportunity to be heard, asserting that it diluted the safeguards provided to civil service officers. Despite alternative suggestions, the Assembly rejected proposed amendments.

Some Members advocated denying the opportunity to be heard only in cases of a person being convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude, distinguishing it from a criminal offense. The Drafting Committee Chairman clarified that the listed grounds were not for dismissal but for not providing an opportunity to be heard. He asserted that Parliament and State legislatures had the authority to enact laws for the dismissal of civil service officers and that the denial of this opportunity could be challenged through an appeal before the Public Service Commission.

All proposed amendments were rejected, and Draft Article 282B was adopted on September 8, 1949. Minor language changes were later made to Article 311 after its enactment in 1950. In 1976, an amendment clarified that after a hearing, if a penalty was imposed on a civil service officer, a separate hearing to determine the penalty amount was not required.

51) Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission  (Article 324)

The deliberations on Draft Article 289, which later became Article 324 in the Constitution of India 1950, unfolded over the course of June 15 and 16, 1949, within the Constituent Assembly. The initial proposal aimed to establish a single Commission for overseeing elections to the Central Legislature, encompassing both the Upper and Lower Houses, while also advocating for individual Election Commissions for each State and province.

However, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee proposed a substantial amendment, advocating for the centralization of the election machinery. The revised Draft Article suggested a unified Election Commission, empowered to conduct elections with the aid of regional commissioners operating under the authority of the Central Election Commission rather than the provincial government.

In response, another member introduced an amendment to alter the appointment process, emphasizing the need for an independent Election Commission free from executive interference. This amendment garnered support from several members, reflecting a collective concern for safeguarding the autonomy and integrity of the electoral process.

The subsequent day witnessed further discussions on Draft Article 289, where various concerns were articulated by assembly members. One prevalent apprehension centered around the perceived concentration of power in the hands of the President, with some contending that this move diminished the authority of provincial governments.

A pivotal point of contention emerged regarding the jurisdiction over State Legislature elections, diverging from the original draft that placed such elections under a State Commission appointed by the State Governor. The Chairman argued for this change, citing reports of discrimination against non-native citizens by State government agencies, potentially compromising the independence and impartiality of the State Commission.

However, dissenting voices in the Assembly contended that centralization wasn’t a solution to undemocratic practices and minority discrimination at the state level. This perspective viewed the proposed Draft Article as diluting the federal structure. The federalism argument faced counterarguments asserting that elections, whether state or central, should remain outside the purview of governments.

Addressing concerns about the President’s influence, the Assembly decided to make certain aspects of the Draft Article subject to laws enacted by Parliament, thereby mitigating potential interference by the Central government. Ultimately, the Assembly adopted the Draft Article, incorporating various amendments, including those proposed by the Drafting Committee.

52) No person to be ineligible for inclusion in, or to claim to be included in a special, electoral roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex (Article 325)

The introduction of Draft Article 289A, later enshrined as Article 325 in the Constitution of India 1950, marked a pivotal moment as it was absent from the original Draft Constitution of 1948. On June 16, 1949, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee presented this new provision to the Constituent Assembly.

The essence of Draft Article 289A was succinct and profound. It outlined that each constituency for parliamentary and state legislative elections would have only one electoral roll. Crucially, it explicitly prohibited the exclusion of any individual from the electoral rolls based on considerations of religion, race, caste, or sex.

The rationale behind this provision, as articulated by the Drafting Committee Chairman, was to firmly establish the principle of having a unified electorate without any provision for separate electorates based on minority status.

53) Elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assemblies of States to be on the basis of adult suffrage (Article 326)

The inception of Draft Article 289B, later recognized as Article 326 in the Constitution of India 1950, marked a notable addition as it was absent from the original Draft Constitution of 1948. Presented by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee on June 16, 1949, this provision made an unequivocal declaration that elections to legislatures would be grounded in universal adult suffrage.

However, a member of the Constituent Assembly expressed dissent, contending that adult franchise was neither theoretically nor practically viable. According to his perspective, the Draft Article “violated the tenets of democracy,” suggesting that the Indian electorate was not sufficiently enlightened, and the concept of parliamentary democracy in India would be doomed to failure.

In response to this opposition, the President reminded the member that the Draft Article was essentially reaffirming a principle already accepted by the Assembly. With this clarification, the debate did not persist, and the Constituent Assembly swiftly adopted Draft Article 289B on the same day without further deliberation.

The adoption of this provision, emphasizing universal adult suffrage, underscored the Assembly’s steadfast commitment to democratic principles and the fundamental right of every adult citizen to participate in the electoral process. While acknowledging the dissenting voice, the Assembly, by adopting Draft Article 289B, reinforced its conviction in the democratic ideals that would shape the electoral landscape of the newly independent India.

54) Power of Parliament to make provision with respect to elections to Legislatures (Article 327)

On June 16, 1949, the Constituent Assembly debated Draft Article 290 (later referred to as Article 327) of the 1950 Constitution of India. The draft article originally gave Congress the power to make provisions regarding the election of legislative bodies and the delimitation of electoral districts. During the deliberations, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee proposed an important amendment that would expand the powers of Parliament by including the preparation of electoral rolls.

The purpose of this change was to give parliament a broader role in shaping the electoral process.
Parliament recognized the importance of this amendment and accepted it, thereby strengthening its role not only in regulating elections and delimiting electoral districts, but also in overseeing the important task of drawing up electoral rolls.

approved to expand. The adoption of the draft amendments was an expression of Parliament’s commitment to providing it with the tools necessary to effectively regulate and manage the electoral framework. This expansion of powers recognizes the multifaceted nature of the electoral process and emphasizes the importance of parliamentary involvement across all areas, from the establishment of election-related regulations to the careful production of accurate and comprehensive electoral rolls.

55) Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the House of the People (Article 330)

Draft Article 292, later embodied as Article 330 in the Constitution of India 1950, underwent comprehensive discussions within the Constituent Assembly on August 23 and 24, 1949. Initially, it proposed reservations of seats in the Lok Sabha for Muslims, Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) from British provinces, and Indian Christians from Madras and Bombay.

However, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee advocated for a substantial amendment during the discussions. The proposed amendment aimed to restrict reservations to only Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) (excluding Tribes from Assam), and STs from autonomous districts in Assam. This adjustment aligned with the Advisory Committee’s recommendation to eliminate reservations for minorities, retaining it exclusively for SCs and STs.

While a member supported the amendment, highlighting the adverse socio-economic conditions of SCs and STs, concerns arose about the potential under-representation of SCs in Assam due to a decrease in their population post-partition. The President clarified that no minimum population requirement existed.

Another member proposed a nuanced approach, suggesting that reserved seats be allocated to constituencies with higher SC and ST populations in each state. This, he argued, would empower these communities by providing them with a more influential voice in electing their representatives.

Amidst the deliberations, discussions emerged about whether SC and ST community members could contest in unreserved seats. The Chairman assured that electoral laws would address this concern. Conversely, a member proposed restricting STs from Assam from contesting in unreserved seats.

In defense of the reservation policy, a member underscored its role in rectifying past undemocratic practices, emphasizing it as a measure of redress for the historically marginalized communities.

56) Representation of the Anglo-Indian Community in the House of the People (Article 331)

On August 24, 1949, the Constituent Assembly engaged in discussions pertaining to Draft Article 293, subsequently incorporated as Article 331 in the Constitution of India 1950. This Draft Article vested the President with the authority to appoint two members from the Anglo-Indian community to the Lok Sabha if, in the President’s assessment, the community was not adequately represented.

During the deliberations, a member proposed an amendment seeking to empower the President to nominate ‘an adequate number’ of members from any minority community to the Lok Sabha, removing the limitations on the number or specific community. The rationale behind this amendment was to provide a more flexible and inclusive approach to minority representation. However, concerns were raised by another member who feared that this amendment could set a perilous precedent, particularly since there already existed Article 81 dealing with the representation of minority communities.

In defense of the proposed amendment, a third member argued that Draft Article 293 was an exception to the existing provisions and was indispensable. The unique circumstance of the Anglo-Indian community, characterized by its small size, warranted special consideration to ensure their representation in the Lok Sabha.

Despite these arguments, the proposed amendment was ultimately rejected by the Assembly. The prevailing sentiment among the members was that the distinctive nature of Draft Article 293, specifically addressing the representation of the Anglo-Indian community, justified its existence as a separate provision. Consequently, the Draft Article was adopted without any modifications on the same day.

57) Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of the States (Article 332)

On August 24, 1949, the Constituent Assembly delved into the discussion surrounding Draft Article 294, subsequently enshrined as Article 332 in the Constitution of India 1950. This Draft Article outlined reservations for the Muslim, Scheduled Caste (SC), and Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities in legislative assemblies throughout India. Additionally, seats were earmarked for Indian Christians, albeit exclusively in the legislative assemblies of Bombay and Madras. Notably, the Draft Article imposed a 10-year time limit on these reservations.

The Chairman of the Drafting Committee proposed a significant amendment, aligning with a decision previously made on May 26, 1949, to eliminate reservations for Muslims and Indian Christians. While there was widespread support for this amended Draft Article, several members raised concerns during the deliberations.

One member expressed uncertainty about the actual benefits accruing to the SC and ST communities through reservations. In response, another member emphasized the invaluable role of reservations in highlighting the grievances of the SC/ST community. The Assembly was reminded of the primary objective behind reservations — to address historical injustices and provide redressal.

However, not all aspects of the proposed Draft Article received unanimous approval. One member opposed the 10-year time limit, arguing that it was insufficient to bring about significant changes in the social and political status of the SC/ST communities. Additionally, this member advocated for extending reservations to local bodies and the executive, though these concerns were not extensively discussed by the Assembly.

In the culmination of the debate, the Constituent Assembly adopted the Draft Article, incorporating the Chairman’s amendment. Subsequent to the original enactment, Article 332 underwent amendments in 1987 and 1992 to include provisions for the reservation of seats for SC/ST communities in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura. These amendments reflected an evolving understanding of the necessity for inclusive representation and social justice within the constitutional framework of India.

58) Representation of the Anglo-Indian community in the Legislative Assemblies of the States (Article 333)

On August 24, 1949, the Constituent Assembly addressed Draft Article 295, later incorporated as Article 333 in the Constitution of India 1950. This Draft Article conferred upon the Governor of a State the authority to nominate members from the Anglo-Indian community to the State Legislative Assembly if the Governor deemed that the community lacked adequate representation.

Remarkably, the Assembly swiftly embraced and adopted this Draft Article without engaging in any substantive debate.

The draft provisions demonstrated a nuanced approach to minority representation, and were particularly responsive to the particular circumstances of the Anglo-Indian community.

 By empowering the governor to appoint commissioners as he saw fit, the constitutional framework recognized the particularity of the Anglo-Indian community’s position and emphasized a commitment to inclusive governance.

The absence of prolonged debate may indicate the Assembly’s acknowledgment of the historical context and the need for a specific provision catering to the Anglo-Indian community’s representation. This efficient adoption reflected the Assembly’s commitment to crafting a constitution that not only encapsulated diverse perspectives but also addressed the intricate challenges of ensuring equitable representation for all communities, irrespective of their numerical strength.

59) Official Language (Article 343)

The genesis of Draft Article 301A, conspicuously absent in the Draft Constitution of India 1948, unfolded when a member of the Drafting Committee introduced it on September 12, 1949. Commonly known as the ‘Munshi-Ayyangar formula,’ this draft article, in essence, declared Hindi in the Devanagari script as the official language of the Union. It also advocated the use of the international form of Indian numerals for official purposes. The deliberations on this pivotal article extended over the course of three days, from September 12 to September 14, 1949.

While some members opposed Hindi as the official language, they reluctantly accepted the draft article. Their contention, however, emphasized that no language should be imposed on India merely by entrenching it in the constitution. A faction of members persisted in their efforts to replace Hindi with Hindustani.

The adoption of Hindi as the official language represented a significant concession to the proponents of Hindi in the Assembly, commonly referred to as ‘Hindi-wallahs.’ Despite this, discontent lingered among them. Criticisms emerged, strategies were devised outside the Assembly, and amendments were proposed. Firstly, concerns were raised about why the Devanagari script was adopted while the Devanagari system of numerals was not. Secondly, apprehensions were voiced about the extended timeframe provided in the draft article for the replacement of English with Hindi; advocates of Hindi wished for a more expeditious transition.

After intense negotiations behind closed doors, the ‘Hindi-wallahs’ presented a set of amendments. The Assembly ultimately adopted one of these amendments, granting Parliament the authority to legislate on Nagari numerals alongside English. This empowered Parliament to authorize the use of Devanagari numerals even before the stipulated 15-year period.

60) Proclamation of Emergency (Article 352)

The deliberations on Draft Article 275 unfolded in the Constituent Assembly on August 2, 1949, centering on the President’s authority to declare an emergency when convinced of a threat to India’s security. The discussion commenced with the Drafting Committee Chairman proposing an amendment to substitute ‘domestic violence’ with ‘external aggression’ and ‘internal disturbance,’ aiming to encompass a broader spectrum of situations warranting an emergency proclamation. A member supporting this amendment highlighted instances where a country might face war without a formal declaration, citing Hitler’s invasion of Poland in World War II.

The proposed amendment found widespread approval among Assembly members, particularly in refining the language to better reflect potential scenarios requiring an emergency declaration. However, as the discourse shifted to the President’s role, dissenting voices emerged. Concerns resonated about the Draft Article endowing the President with excessive power, posing risks to democracy, fundamental rights, and federalism. In response, a member suggested that the President should proclaim an emergency only “upon the advice of his council of ministers” to prevent potential abuse of power, safeguarding individual freedoms and state powers. Those advocating this stance appeared more amenable to Parliament leading the declaration of emergency.

However, not all members endorsed this perspective. Some argued that Parliament’s approval requirement for the emergency declaration negated concerns about presidential overreach. They posited the President, as the ultimate authority to assess India’s security, was better suited for this responsibility than Parliament, whose members, elected through adult franchise, might be vulnerable to foreign influence due to perceived illiteracy.

Despite these varied viewpoints, the Assembly ultimately adopted the Draft Article, incorporating only the Drafting Committee Chairman’s proposed amendment. This decision reflected a delicate balance between empowering the President to respond swiftly to security threats and ensuring adequate safeguards against potential misuse of emergency powers.

61) Protection of President and Governors and Rajpramukhs (Article 361)

The Constituent Assembly engaged in a deliberation on Draft Article 302, later established as Article 361 in the Constitution of India, on September 8, 1949. This draft sought to shield the President of India and Governors of States from legal scrutiny during their term of office. It explicitly prohibited the courts from questioning any actions taken by these officeholders, ensuring immunity from criminal charges, arrest, or imprisonment while in office. Notably, civil cases could still be filed against them, and citizens retained the right to sue the Union or State Government(s).

During the discussion, the Drafting Committee Chairman introduced amendments, one of which aimed to reinforce the assurance that the Draft Article did not infringe upon an individual’s right to sue the government(s). A colleague from the Drafting Committee emphasized that this amendment was crucial for safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights.

However, a Member raised a pertinent question regarding the phrase ‘during his term of office,’ expressing ambiguity in its interpretation. He sought clarification on whether it meant that the President and Governors were immune from criminal liability while in office or if they had to resign immediately upon facing criminal charges. Unfortunately, despite the Member’s repeated queries, the Drafting Committee did not provide a clear response to this crucial point, leaving the interpretation open-ended.

The ensuing discussion did not yield substantial debates, and on September 8, 1949, the Assembly proceeded to adopt Draft Article 302 with the amendments proposed by the Drafting Committee Chairman. Although this constitutional provision provides protection to the president and governors, certain  nuances of interpretation remain unclear, leading to continued debate over the scope and impact of immunity during their term of office.

62) Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure therefor (Article 368)

The Constituent Assembly engaged in a significant debate on Draft Article 304 on September 17, 1949. This draft conferred exclusive authority for amending the Constitution to Parliament and delineated the procedural aspects of wielding this power. According to the draft, an amendment necessitated the approval of a two-thirds majority in Parliament and, in certain instances, the consent of half of India’s states.

During the deliberation, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee proposed an amendment aimed at refining the language of the draft and expanding the number of articles requiring the consent of India’s states for their amendment.

A substantial number of Assembly members participating in the debate expressed opposition to the two-thirds majority requirement, advocating for a “simple majority” instead. They argue that the draft would make constitutional reform burdensome, if not  impossible, and that it would discourage progressive legislation and prevent a constitution from adapting to evolving social and political dynamics. Some members argued that such rigidity wasn’t justified, considering the modestly representative nature of the Constituent Assembly.

Another notable concern revolved around the potential weakening of the Union Parliament’s supremacy and the obstruction of future modifications to India’s federal structure if desired by Parliament.

In response, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee reminded members that other draft articles allowed amendments by a simple majority, emphasizing that Draft Article 304 pertained to a specific category of articles requiring a higher amendment threshold.

He cited examples of constitutional frameworks in Ireland, Switzerland, Australia and the United States to explain how major constitutions around the world do not allow for amendment of all parts by a simple majority.

 He also emphasized the need to involve countries in the amendment process to protect their interests.

 The debate presented a nuanced consideration of the delicate balance between constitutional stability and adaptability, and reflected the complex deliberations of Congress in shaping India’s founding document.

63) Temporary power to Parliament to make laws with respect to certain matters in the State List as if they were matters in the Concurrent List (Article 369)

On October 7, 1949, the Constituent Assembly engaged in a discussion regarding Draft Article 306, positioned as the first among the Constitution’s ‘temporary and transitory provisions.’ This draft vested Parliament with the authority to legislate on specific subjects in the State List—such as cotton and woollen textiles, foodstuffs, coal, and iron—as if they belonged to the Concurrent List. This provision was applicable for a duration of five years following the Constitution’s enactment.

A member highlighted that the essence of Draft Article 306 was to address the economic challenges accompanying India’s transition to an independent state. Considering the backdrop of an international economic crisis, he proposed an amendment to extend the time limit from 5 to 15 years. However, the Drafting Committee Chairman swiftly dismissed this amendment without substantial discussion.

Another member aimed to broaden the scope of the draft by including charcoal and firewood. He argued that these commodities were susceptible to economic crises, emphasizing the necessity for the Union government to possess the authority to regulate their prices. While the Drafting Committee Chairman expressed openness to the suggestion, the Assembly did not ultimately accept this amendment.

The Draft Article, as amended by the Drafting Committee Chairman, received adoption by the Constitution on October 7, 1949.

64) Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir (Article 370)

This constitutional provision, outlined in Article 370, articulates special considerations for the State of Jammu and Kashmir, diverging from the normative application of the Constitution. Notably, Article 238, governing the administration of territories, does not extend to Jammu and Kashmir. Instead, the power of the Indian Parliament to legislate for this state is confined within specific parameters.

The legislative authority of Parliament regarding Jammu and Kashmir is delineated in two key facets: matters in the Union and Concurrent Lists, mirroring those specified in the Instrument of Accession under which the state acceded to the Dominion of India, and other matters within these Lists that the President may designate in consultation with the state government. The term “Government of the State” in this context refers to the individual recognized by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the incumbent Council of Ministers as per the proclamation dated March 5, 1948.

Moreover, while the fundamental tenets of Article 1, which pertains to the territory of India, are applicable to Jammu and Kashmir, certain provisions within the Constitution are subject to exceptions and modifications. The President, through specific orders, holds the authority to specify the extent of application, except in matters directly linked to the Instrument of Accession, where consultation with the state government is imperative. Furthermore, any orders not related to these specified matters necessitate the concurrence of the state government.

In the event that the concurrence of the state government is granted before the convening of the Constituent Assembly for drafting the State Constitution, such concurrence is presented before the Assembly for its deliberation and decision. This provision underscores the significance of the state’s role in shaping its constitutional framework.

Additionally, a crucial safeguard is embedded in the article, allowing the President to, through public notification, declare the cessation or modification of the operative status of Article 370. However, the Constituent Assembly’s recommendation from the State is a prerequisite for such a presidential notification, reinforcing the democratic principle of involving the state’s representatives in decisions that impact its constitutional provisions.

In essence, Article 370 outlines a distinctive constitutional arrangement for Jammu and Kashmir, acknowledging its accession to India while incorporating mechanisms that respect the state’s unique circumstances and historical context. The interplay of parliamentary powers, state concurrence, and constituent assembly deliberations demonstrates a nuanced approach aimed at fostering cooperation and ensuring the state’s participation in shaping its constitutional destiny.

Draft Article 306A, later to become Article 370 of the Constitution of India in 1950, emerged as a unique constitutional provision absent from the initial Draft Constitution of India in 1948. The genesis of this article unfolded in the Constituent Assembly on October 17, 1949, initiating discussions that would shape the special status accorded to the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) within the Indian Union.

At its core, Draft Article 306A stipulated that the application of the Indian Constitution to J&K would be contingent upon the terms delineated in the Instruments of Accession (IOA) inked by India and J&K. These instruments set the conditions under which J&K integrated into the Indian Union, entailing a distinctive level of autonomy within the federal structure. Notably, the Draft Article paved the way for the establishment of the J&K Constituent Assembly, tasked with the formulation of a unique constitution for the state. This assembly held the authority to deliberate on which provisions of the Indian Constitution would find application in J&K.

During the deliberations, a member raised a pertinent question questioning the rationale behind conferring special constitutional status upon J&K. In response, a member of the Drafting Committee underscored the unique political circumstances surrounding J&K as the impetus for such a provision. These circumstances included the ongoing conflict in the state, international involvement, and commitments made by the Indian Government, including the right of the state to determine its political future. Despite these clarifications, skepticism lingered, with one member contending that the provision was discriminatory, drawing attention to the differential treatment compared to other princely states like the State of Baroda.

Ultimately, the Constituent Assembly, after due debate, endorsed Draft Article 306A without introducing any amendments on October 17, 1949. This decision solidified the special constitutional arrangement designed for J&K, acknowledging the exceptional circumstances surrounding its accession to the Indian Union.

Fast forward to August 6, 2019, marked a significant juncture in the constitutional narrative. Article 370, a manifestation of the unique political compact between J&K and the Indian Union, was effectively revoked through a Presidential order. This move, backed by the recommendations of both Houses of Parliament, brought about a paradigm shift in the constitutional landscape, reshaping the relationship between J&K and the Union. The decision to revoke Article 370 sparked extensive debates and discussions, eliciting varied reactions on constitutional, political, and social fronts. The repeal marked the culmination of a constitutional trajectory that had its origins in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly nearly seven decades earlier.

[Know all about constitution of india]

FAQ: