Constitution of India
Article 152: Definition
Part VI — The States
Article 152 (no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: The expression 'State' as used in Part VI does not include the State of Jammu and Kashmir, unless the context otherwise requires. ORIGINAL TEXT (pre-1956): 1. Originally read: 'State' means a State specified in Part A of the First Schedule. 2. Substituted by the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956, Section 29 and Schedule. 3. New text: 'State' does not include the State of Jammu and Kashmir. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. This is a definitional clause — it sets the scope of Part VI (Articles 152–237). 2. Part VI governs the executive, legislature, and judiciary of States. 3. J&K was excluded because it had its own Constitution and governance under Article 370. 4. Post-2019 abrogation of Article 370, this exclusion is practically defunct. 5. Article 152 remains unamended in text, but its exclusionary reference is now redundant. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Doctrine of Special Status — J&K's unique constitutional position was reflected through exclusions in definitional articles like Art. 152. 2. Post-2019: Doctrine of Uniform Constitutional Application now prevails.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Part III dealt with provincial governance structures. Original provision: Defined 'Province' and 'Governor's Province' for Part III applicability. What India kept: Retained the concept of a definitional clause opening the Part on State governance. 2. Canadian Constitution, 1867 — Section 58 onwards dealt with provincial executives. Original provision: Defined 'Province' scope for provincial governance provisions. What India kept: The idea of separately structuring Union and State governance in different Parts. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Exclusion of J&K — Unique to India; needed because of the special accession terms and Article 370 arrangement (1947 Instrument of Accession). 2. Part A / Part B / Part C classification of States — Original Constitution classified States into categories; the 7th Amendment (1956) abolished this classification after States Reorganisation. 3. Separate Part for States — Unlike unitary constitutions, India needed a dedicated Part VI to operationalise its federal structure with State-level executives, legislatures, and judiciaries.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 30th May 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 128 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Mr. President (Dr. Rajendra Prasad) — Noted that Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad's amendment on the chapter heading would be left aside. 2. Shri T. T. Krishnamachari (Madras) — Stated the word 'State' had been current right through the Constitution, so no amendment was needed. 3. Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad (West Bengal) — Had given notice of an amendment regarding the chapter heading, which was set aside. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Chapter heading — Mr. Naziruddin Ahmad proposed renaming the chapter heading, but it was deferred. 2. Amendment No. 1991 — Was a negative amendment and could not be moved. 3. Amendment No. 1992 — Was of a drafting nature; T. T. Krishnamachari argued it was unnecessary. FINAL OUTCOME: 1. The Draft Article was accepted WITHOUT any debate on substance. 2. No amendments were moved or adopted. 3. Article 128 was added to the Constitution as moved. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: Dr. Ambedkar did not speak on this article — it was adopted without substantive debate.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Trilok Singh (1994) — Recognised J&K's special position under Article 370 and noted that Article 152's exclusion reflected this unique constitutional relationship. 2. Prem Nath Kaul v. State of J&K (1959) — Affirmed J&K's distinct constitutional status and the limited applicability of the Indian Constitution to J&K. 3. In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023) — Constitution Bench unanimously upheld the abrogation of Article 370; effectively rendered Article 152's exclusion of J&K obsolete. 4. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) — Discussed the federal structure and State governance under Part VI; relied upon in the 2023 Article 370 verdict. NOTE: No major case has directly interpreted Article 152 in isolation — its judicial significance arises through cases on J&K's special status and Article 370. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. None — The 2023 Constitution Bench verdict on Article 370 was unanimous (5-0). SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. A.G. Noorani — Argued that Article 370 recorded a 'solemn compact' between India and J&K, making the Article 152 exclusion constitutionally significant. 2. D.D. Basu — Noted that Article 152 is a definitional article whose practical scope narrowed with each Presidential Order extending the Constitution to J&K.