Constitution of India
Article 238: Application of provisions of Part VI to States in Part B of the First Schedule
Part VII — The States in Part B of the First Schedule (Repealed)
Article 238 (single article, no sub-divisions — but contained 13+ numbered modifications)
WHAT IT SAID: The provisions of Part VI shall apply to Part B States as they apply to Part A States, subject to specific modifications and omissions. KEY MODIFICATIONS (before repeal): 1. Clause (1): 'Governor' replaced by 'Rajpramukh' throughout Part VI (except Article 232(b)). 2. Clause (2): In Article 152, 'Part A' replaced by 'Part B'. 3. Clause (3): Rajpramukh entitled to official residence and allowances determined by the President. 4. Clause (9): Members' privileges in Article 195 determined by Rajpramukh. 5. Clause (10): Charged expenditure included Rajpramukh's allowances and Devaswom fund for Travancore-Cochin. 6. Clause (12): In Article 214, 'Province' replaced by 'Indian State'. 7. Clause (13): Substituted Article 221 — High Court judges' salaries determined by President after consulting Rajpramukh. WHAT IT MEANT: Part B States (princely states) were governed under the same framework as Part A States (former provinces), but with adaptations recognising the unique political status of former princely rulers. KEY DOCTRINE: Transitional Federalism — a temporary asymmetric arrangement to integrate princely states into India's constitutional framework while respecting their distinct political origins.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections on Indian States and their accession to the Federation. Original provision: The 1935 Act contemplated princely states joining the federation through Instruments of Accession on limited subjects. What India kept: The concept of differential treatment for princely states during a transitional period. 2. Instrument of Accession (1947) — Framework designed by V.P. Menon. Original provision: Rulers acceded on three subjects — Defence, External Affairs, and Communications. What India kept: The idea that former rulers (as Rajpramukhs) would continue as ceremonial heads during transition. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Created 'Rajpramukh' as constitutional head — to honour political agreements with former princely rulers who signed Instruments of Accession. 2. Maintained a two-tier classification (Part A and Part B States) — to balance political sensitivities of integration while ensuring administrative uniformity. 3. Special financial provisions (e.g., Devaswom fund for Travancore-Cochin) — to honour pre-existing covenants between merging princely states. ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: Article 238 was a uniquely Indian solution to a uniquely Indian problem — integrating 550+ princely states into a democratic republic. No other constitution had to address such a massive political integration exercise.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 12–13 October 1949 (CAD Volume X) DRAFT ARTICLE: 211A (not part of original Draft Constitution of 1948; introduced later in October 1949) KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel — Made a detailed statement on 12 October 1949 announcing completion of princely states' integration; described the new Constitution as 'not an alliance between democracies and dynasties, but a real Union of the Indian people'. 2. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Proposed insertion of Draft Article 211A to extend Part VI provisions to Part B States with modifications. 3. Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya (Congress President) — Supported the proposal and praised Sardar Patel's integration efforts. 4. Jainarain Vyas (Rajasthan) — Spoke in support of the integration arrangements. 5. Representatives from Mysore — Expressed satisfaction after Sardar Patel's assurances regarding their state's autonomy concerns. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Armed forces in Part B States — Some members wanted immediate merger of princely state armed forces with the Indian Union forces; others wanted a transitional period. 2. Differentiation between Provinces and States — Some members questioned why Part B States were subject to additional central control under Article 306B, if the objective was equal treatment. FINAL OUTCOME: Draft Article 211A was adopted with minor amendments and without significant debate, as broad consensus existed on the integration framework. SARDAR PATEL'S KEY STATEMENT (12 Oct 1949): The new Constitution is 'not an alliance between democracies and dynasties, but a real Union of the Indian people, built on the basic concept of the sovereignty of the people.'
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. No major Supreme Court judgment directly interpreted Article 238 due to its early repeal in 1956. 2. T.M. Kanniyan v. Income Tax Officer (AIR 1968 SC 637) — Held that Union Territories are governed by the President under Article 239 and are not covered by Part VI; reflected the post-repeal position after Article 238 was removed. 3. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) — Did not address Article 238 directly, but clarified the President's powers over state governments and the Union-State relationship dynamics shaped by the 7th Amendment. 4. Re Berubari Union Case (1960) — Not about Article 238 directly, but established guidelines on altering Indian territory and reinforced constitutional processes for territorial reorganisation — relevant to the broader framework of state integration. 5. New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab (1997) 7 SCC 339 — Observed that Union Territories do not enjoy the same constitutional status as States, reflecting the post-1956 framework. NOTABLE DISSENTS: None recorded — Article 238 was not directly litigated before its repeal. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Granville Austin — Described the integration of princely states as one of the two great achievements of the Constituent Assembly, the other being the resolution of the communal problem. 2. V.P. Menon — Architect of the integration policy; his framework of Instruments of Accession and merger agreements laid the political foundation that Article 238 constitutionalised.