Constitution of India
Article 242: Coorg [Repealed/Omitted]
Part VIII — The Union Territories (originally titled 'The States in Part C of the First Schedule')
Clause (1) — Coorg Legislative Council
WHAT IT SAID: Until Parliament by law otherwise provides, the constitution, powers and functions of the Coorg Legislative Council shall remain as they were immediately before the commencement of this Constitution. WHAT IT MEANT: Coorg's pre-existing legislative body would continue functioning under its old rules until Parliament enacted new legislation for Coorg. KEY DOCTRINE: Transitional continuity — preserving pre-constitutional legislative structures during the transition from colonial to republican governance.
Clause (2) — Revenue and Expenditure Arrangements for Coorg
WHAT IT SAID: The arrangements with respect to revenues collected in Coorg and expenses in respect of Coorg shall, until other provision is made by the President by order, continue unchanged. WHAT IT MEANT: Coorg's existing financial framework (tax collection, budget allocation) would remain intact until the President specifically altered it by executive order. KEY DOCTRINE: Presidential executive discretion — the President, not Parliament, held the power to modify Coorg's fiscal arrangements, reflecting the centrally administered nature of Part C states.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Provisions for Chief Commissioner's Provinces (Sections 94 and 123) Original provision: Chief Commissioner's Provinces like Coorg were centrally administered territories under British India with limited legislative structures. What India kept: The concept of centrally administered territories with minimal legislative apparatus, carried forward as Part C states. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Created a specific transitional provision (Art. 242) for Coorg — Because Coorg had a unique Coorg Legislative Council dating from British rule that needed continuity. 2. Divided power between Parliament (legislative structure) and President (finances) — Reflecting the dual administrative need of Part C states under central control. 3. Made the provision temporary and subordinate to future Parliament/Presidential action — Ensuring flexibility for eventual state reorganization. IF ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: Article 242 was a uniquely Indian transitional mechanism to bridge colonial-era governance of Coorg into the republican constitutional framework, pending full integration into the Indian Union's administrative structure.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: Part VIII provisions (including draft Article 242) were taken up during 1949 sessions (CAD Volumes VIII–IX). KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Chairman, Drafting Committee) — Highlighted the need for fewer administrative units and stronger governance frameworks for Part C states like Coorg. 2. Shri H.V. Kamath (C.P. & Berar) — Supported reorganization of smaller units for linguistic coherence and administrative efficiency. 3. Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena (United Provinces) — Sought to speak on amendments relating to Articles 241–242 but was ruled out as the amendments were already covered. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Whether tiny Part C states like Coorg should have separate legislative structures at all — Some members argued these small territories should be directly administered without maintaining separate councils. 2. The general debate about Part C state provisions was relatively brief — Articles 241 and 242 were noted as 'covered by amendments already moved' and adopted without extended floor debate. FINAL OUTCOME: Article 242 was adopted as a transitional provision preserving the existing Coorg Legislative Council and fiscal arrangements, pending future Parliamentary legislation. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE (if available): No specific direct quote on Article 242 is available in the CAD records; the article was adopted as part of a batch of Part VIII provisions without extended individual debate.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: None — Article 242 was never subjected to substantive Supreme Court scrutiny. It was a transitional provision operative only from 26 January 1950 to 1 November 1956 (approximately 6 years), and was repealed before any significant judicial challenge arose. NOTABLE DISSENTS: None applicable. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. States Reorganisation Commission (Fazal Ali, K.M. Panikkar, H.N. Kunzru, 1955) — Recommended merger of Coorg into Mysore State based on linguistic, administrative, and economic considerations, rendering Art. 242 redundant. 2. D.D. Basu (Constitutional commentator) — Noted that Article 242, along with other omitted Part VIII provisions, exemplifies the Constitution's capacity for self-correction through amendment to match evolving political geography.