SET1

1) Roy, Kuldip Singh, Santosh Hegde, R. F. Nariman and U. U. Lalit have been appointed to the
supreme court directly from the bar (i.e. who were practising advocates).
The supreme court saw its first woman judge when Justice M. Fathima Beevi was sworn into office in
1989. The sixth and the most recent woman judge in the court is Justice R. Banumathi. In 2000
Justice K. G. Balakrishnan became the first judge from the dalit community. In 2007 he also became
the firstdalit Chief Justice of India. In 2010, Justice S. H. Kapadia coming from a Parsi minority
community became the Chief Justice of India.
Judicial independence
The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways.
Appointments and the Collegium
Judges of Supreme Court used to be appointed by the President of India, who acted on the advice of
the Union Cabinet. In the Three Judges Cases - (1982, 1993, 1998), the court held that a Supreme
Court judge can be appointed by the President only on the recommendations of the collegium
system a closed group consisting of the Chief Justice of India and the four most senior associate
judges of the court. This has resulted in a Memorandum of Procedure laying down the process which
is being presently followed for appointment of Judges to both the High Courts and the Supreme
Court.
The Union Cabinet and Parliament have almost no role to play in the appointment of judges to the
Supreme Court or to any of India's twenty-four High Courts.
The position of Chief Justice of India is attained on the basis of seniority amongst the judges serving
on the court. The collegium system has come under a fair amount of criticism.
Tenure
Supreme Court judges retire at the age of 65 which is 3 years more than the retirement age of a
judge of the High Court. Hence a judge at the Supreme Court who have been elevated from a High
Court serves at the Supreme Court for at least more than 3 years. However, there have been
suggestions, including from the judges of the Supreme Court of India, to provide for a fixed term for
the judges there including the Chief Justice of India.
Salary
Article 125 of the Indian Constitution leaves it to the Indian Parliament to determine the salary, other
allowances, leave of absence, pension, etc. of the Supreme Court judges. However, the Parliament
cannot alter any of these privileges and rights to the judge's disadvantage after his appointment. A
judge gets 90,000 per month, the Chief Justice earns an additional 10,000.
Removal
A judge of the Supreme Court can be removed under the Constitution only on grounds of proven
misconduct or incapacity and by an order of the President of India, after a notice signed by at least
100 members of the Lok Sabha (House of the People) or 50 members of the Rajya Sabha (Council of
the States) is passed by a two-third majority in each House of the Parliament.
2) The British Indian Empire, which included present-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, was divided
into two types of territories: the Provinces of British India, which were governed directly by British
officials responsible to the Governor-General of India; and princely states, under the rule of local

hereditary rulers who recognised British suzerainty in return for local autonomy, in most cases as
established by treaty. As a result of the reforms of the early 20th century, most of the British
provinces had directly elected legislatures as well as governors, although some of the smaller
provinces were governed by a chief commissioner appointed by the Governor-General. Major reforms
put forward by the British in the 1930s also recognised the principle of federalism, which was carried
forward into the governance of independent India.
On

15

August

1947,

British

India

was

granted

independence

as

the

separate dominions of India and Pakistan. The British dissolved their treaty relations with more than
five hundred princely states, who were encouraged to accede to either India or Pakistan, while under
no compulsion to do so. Most of the states acceded to India, and a few to Pakistan. Bhutan and
Hyderabad opted for independence, although the armed intervention of India conquered Hyderabad
and brought it into the Indian Union.

South Indian states prior to the States Reorganisation Act

Between 1947 and about 1950, the territories of the princely states were politically integrated into
the Indian Union. Most were merged into existing provinces; others were organised into new
provinces, such as Rajputana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Bharat, and Vindhya Pradesh, made up of
multiple princely states; a few, including Mysore, Hyderabad, Bhopal, and Bilaspur, became separate
provinces. The Government of India Act 1935 remained the constitutional law of India pending
adoption of a new Constitution.
3) Between 1947 and about 1950, the territories of the princely states were politically integrated into
the Indian Union. Most were merged into existing provinces; others were organised into new
provinces, such as Rajputana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Bharat, and Vindhya Pradesh, made up of
multiple princely states; a few, including Mysore, Hyderabad, Bhopal, and Bilaspur, became separate
provinces. The Government of India Act 1935 remained the constitutional law of India pending
adoption of a new Constitution.

The new Constitution of India, which came into force on 26 January 1950, made India a sovereign
democratic republic. The new republic was also declared to be a "Union of States". The constitution
of 1950 distinguished between three main types of states:

Part A states, which were the former governors' provinces of British India, were ruled by an
elected

governor

and

state

were Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Madhya

Berar),Madras, Orissa, Punjab (formerly

legislature.

The

Pradesh (formerly
East

Punjab), Uttar

nine
Central

Part

Provinces

Pradesh (formerly

the

states
and
United

Provinces), and West Bengal.

The eight Part B states were former princely states or groups of princely states, governed by
a rajpramukh, who was usually the ruler of a constituent state, and an elected legislature. The
rajpramukh was appointed by the President of India. The Part B states were Hyderabad, Jammu
and

Kashmir, Madhya

Bharat, Mysore, Patiala

and

East

Punjab

States

Union (PEPSU), Rajasthan, Saurashtra, and Travancore-Cochin.

The ten Part C states included both the former chief commissioners' provinces and some
princely states, and each was governed by a chief commissioner appointed by the President of
India.

The

Part

states

were Ajmer, Bhopal, Bilaspur, Coorg, Delhi, Himachal

Pradesh, Cutch, Manipur, Tripura, and Vindhya Pradesh.

The sole Part D state was the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which were administered by a lieutenant
governor appointed by the central government.
4) In December 1953, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru appointed the States Reorganisation
Commission to reorganize the Indian states. It was headed by the retired Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, Fazal Ali. and the commission itself was known as the Fazal Ali Commission. The
other two members of the commission were H. N. Kunzru and K. M. Panikkar. The efforts of this
commission were overseen by Govind Ballabh Pant, who served as the Home Minister from
December 1954. The commission submitted a report on September 30, 1955, recommending the
reorganisation of India's states. The parliament debated the report. A bill making changes to the
constitution and reorganising the states was passed on 31 August 1956.
Related changes by other legislation
The States Reorganisation Act was enacted on 31 August 1956. Before it came into effect on 1
November, an important amendment to the Constitution was also enacted; this amendment (the
Seventh)
Under the Seventh Amendment, the existing distinction among Part A, Part B, Part C, and Part D
states was abolished. The distinction between Part A and Part B states was removed, becoming
known simply as "states". A new type of entity, the union territory, replaced the classification as a
Part C or Part D state.
A further Act also came into effect on 1 November, transferring certain territories from Bihar to West
Bengal.

SET -B
1) The borders of these states, inherited from British India, were not suitable for easy administration.
The internal provincial borders of British India were a result of historical events, as well as political,
military and strategic planning by the British. The Government agreed that the reorganization of
state borders was necessary, but the basis of reorganization was yet to be determined.
One of the proposals was to reorganize the state on the basis of languages of India. This would make
administration easier, and would help replace the caste and religion-based identities with less
controversial linguistic identities. Earlier in 1920, the members of the Indian National Congress had
agreed on the linguistic reorganization of the Indian states as one of the party's political goals. The
Provincial Committees of the party were set on this basis since 1920. In 1927, the Congress declared
that it was committed to "the redistribution of provinces on a linguistic basis", and reaffirmed its
stance several times, including in the election manifesto of 1945-46.
But, soon after independence, the Congress-led Government became concerned that the states
formed solely on a linguistic basis might be unsuitable, and might even pose a risk to the national
unity. On 17 June 1948, Rajendra Prasad, the President of the Constituent Assembly, set up the
Linguistic Provinces Commission (aka Dar Commission) to recommend whether the states should be
reorganized on linguistic basis or not. The committee included SK Dar (retired Judge of the Allahabad
High Court), JN Lal (lawyer) and Panna Lall (retired Indian Civil Service officer). In its 10 December
1948 report, the Commission recommended that "the formation of provinces on exclusively or even
mainly linguistic considerations is not in the larger interests of the Indian nation". It recommended
the reorganization of the provinces of Madras, Bombay and Central Provinces and Berar primarily on
the basis of geographical contiguity, financial self-sufficiency and ease of administration.
2)* Soon after the report was published, the Congress, at its Jaipur session, set up the "JVP
committee"

to

study

the

recommendations

of

the

Dar

Commission.

The

committee,

comprised Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel, in addition to the Congress president Pattabhi
Sitaramayya. In its report dated 1 April 1949, the Committee stated that the time was not suitable
for formation of new provinces, but also stated "if public sentiment is insistent and overwhelming,
we, as democrats, have to submit to it, but subject to certain limitations in regard to the good of
India as a whole".
B. R. Ambedkar submitted a Memorandum (dated 14 October 1948) to the Dar Commission,
supporting the formation of linguistic provinces, specifically the formation of the Marathimajority Maharashtra state with Bombay as its capital. To address the concern of national unity, he
suggested that the official language of every province should be same as the official language of the
Central Government. KM Munshi, a Gujarati leader opposed to incorporation of Bombay in the
proposed Maharashtra state, opposed the linguistic reorganization proposal, saying that "the political
ambition of a linguistic group can only be satisfied by the exclusion and discrimination of other
linguistic groups within the area. No safeguards and no fundamental rights can save them from the
subtle psychological exclusion which linguism implies."

By the 1952, the demand for creation of a Telugu-majority state in the parts of the Madras State had
become powerful. Potti Sreeramulu, one of the activists demanding the formation of a Telugumajority state, died on 16 December 1952 after undertaking a fast-unto-death. Subsequently, the
Telugu-majority Andhra State was formed in 1953. This sparked off agitations all over the country,
with linguistic groups demanding separate statehoods.
3)*

The Travancore

Tamil

Nadu

Congress demanded

to

merge Thovalai, Agasteeswaram, Kalkulam, Vilavancode,

Neyyatinkara, Senkottai,Deviculam and Peermade with Madras State. However,

the

Commission

recommended only the merger of Thovalai, Agasteeswaram, Kalkulam, Vilvancode and Shenkottai
with Madras State. In Neyyatinkara Taluk the Commission found that 86% of the people knew
Malayalam. So the Commission did not favour the merger of this Taluk with Madras State. During the
Lok Sabha (Parliament) discussions, the representatives of Travancore-Cochin State vehemently
opposed the Commission's recommendations for the merger of the Southern Taluks with Madras
State. A. Nesamony argued for the merger of Neyyatinkara, Deviculam, Peermade and Chittoor with
the Tamil-majority Madras State.
Even though the SRC recommended for the merger of the entire Shenkottai taluk, the subsequently
formed Joint Committee recommended the eastern portion of Shenkottai alone to be merged with
Madras State. This decision was finally published authoritatively on 16 January 1956. In the July 1956
Lok Sabha meeting, Nesamony argued for the full merger of Shencottai as recommended by SRC.
The House refused to reconsider the decision of the joint Committee by over-ruling the
recommendation of the SRC
Set c
1)** The Commission's report judged the arguments for and against the merger of the Telugumajority Telangana region (of Hyderabad State) and the Andhra State (created in 1953). Para 369 to
389 of SRC deals with the merger of Telangana and Andhra to establish the Andhra Pradesh state
(complete text of the recommendations is available on Wikisource). Para 386 of SRC says .."After
taking all these factors into consideration we have come to the conclusions that it will be in the
interests of Andhra as well as Telangana, if for the present, the Telangana area is to constitute into a
separate State, which may be known as the Hyderabad State with provision for its unification with
Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961 if by a two thirds majority the
legislature of the residency Hyderabad State expresses itself in favor of such unification".
Hyderabad Chief minister in his letter to Congress President said Communist parties supported the
merger for their political calculations. Hyderabad PCC chief said overwhelming majority from
Congress party opposed the merger and Communists were elected in special circumstances in 1951
and Visalandhra was not a political issue in 1951 and Assembly does not reflect people's view on this
issue. He also said 80% of Congress delegates who were elected in 1955 opposed merger.
In Hyderabad assembly out of 174 MLAs, 147 MLAs expressed their view. 103 MLA's (including
Marathi and Kannada MLAs) supported the merger and opposed the Fazal Ali Commission's
recommendation to keep Telangana as a separate State for 5 years; and 29 supported opposed such

merger. Among Telangana MLAs, 59 Telangana MLAs agreed with the merger, 25 Telangana MLAs
opposed the merger. Out of 94 Telangana MLAs in the assembly, 36 were Communists(PDF), 40 were
Congress, 11 were Socialist party(SP), 9 were independents. Voting did not take place on the
resolution because Telangana proponents asked to include the phrase "As per the wishes of people"
in the resolution.
2)** An agreement was reached between Telangana leaders and Andhra leaders on 20 February 1956
to merge Telangana and Andhra with promises to safeguard Telangana's interests. Popular
newspaper in Telangana, Golconda Patrika, in its editorial on 8 March 1956, immediately after Nehru
public declaration about the merger, expressing doubts about the Gentleman's agreement said
Andhra older brother might say any number of sweet things now, but they have to be committed to
their promises and they should not exploit Telangana younger brother in future."
Following the Gentlemen's agreement, the central government established a unified Andhra
Pradesh on November 1, 1956.
There have been several movements to invalidate the merger of Telangana and Andhra, major ones
occurring in 1969, 1972 and 2000s onwards. The Telangana movementgained momentum over
decades becoming a widespread political demand of creating a new state from the Telangana region
of Andhra Pradesh.[16] In early 2014, the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 was approved by
the Indian parliament, and Telangana became India's 29th state on 2 June 2014.
Punjabi Suba
The Akali Dal, a Sikh-dominated political party active mainly in Punjab, sought to create a Punjabi
Suba (a Punjabi-majority) province. This new state would be a Sikh-majority state, which caused
concern among the Punjabi Hindus. The Sikh leaders such Fateh Singh tactically stressed the
linguistic basis of the demand, while downplaying its religious basis a state where the distinct Sikh
identity could be preserved. The Hindu newspapers from Jalandhar, exhorted the Punjabi Hindus to
declare Hindi as their "mother tongue", so that the Punjabi Suba proponents could be deprived of the
argument that their demand was solely linguistic.
The States Reorganization Commission rejected the demand for a Punjabi-majority state saying that
it lacked a majority support and that Punjabi was not grammatically very distinct from Hindi.
The Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) was merged with Punjab, though. Akali Dal
continued its movement, and in 1966 the Punjab Reorganisation Act split Punjab into the Sikhmajority Punjab state and the Hindu-majority state of Haryana, with Chandigarh, administered as a
separate union territory, as the shared capital of the two states.
3)* The President can also issue different proclamations on grounds of war, external aggression,
armed rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, whether or not there is a proclamation already issued
by him and such proclamation is in operation. This provision was added by the 38th Amendment Act
of 1975.

When a national emergency is declared on the ground of war or external aggression, it is known as
External Emergency. On the other hand, when it is declared on the ground of armed rebellion, it is
known as Internal Emergency.
A proclamation of national emergency may be applicable to the entire country or only a part of it.
The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 enabled the president to limit the operation of a National
Emergency to a specified part of India.
Originally, the Constitution mentioned internal disturbance as the third ground for the proclamation
of a National Emergency, but the expression was too vague and had a wider connotation. Hence, the
44th Amendment Act of 1978 substituted the words armed rebellion for internal disturbance. Thus,
it is no longer possible to declare a National Emergency on the ground of internal disturbance as
was done in 1975 by the Congress government headed by Indira Gandhi.
The President, however, can proclaim a national emergency only after receiving a written
recommendation from the cabinet3. This means that the emergency can be declared only on the
concurrence of the cabinet and not merely on the advice of the prime minister. In 1975, the then
Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi advised the president to proclaim emergency without consulting her
cabinet. The cabinet was informed of the proclamation after it was made, as a fait accompli. The
44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced this safeguard to eliminate any possibility of the prime
minister alone taking a decision in this regard.