What governments did, and what it cost the country

What was done

The Government of India published the White Paper on Indian States, which recorded the strategy of persuading rulers to sign instruments of accession on defence, external affairs and communication, and the merger of states into unions such as PEPSU [10]. The Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution of India on 26 November 1949, and it commenced on 26 January 1950, making India a Union of States [5]. The Government of India settled private properties of rulers and guaranteed privy purses, later ended by the Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 [7][10].

What it meant for the country

The documents record the consolidation of princely states into the Indian Union through the Constitution of India, 1950, and the extension of central laws to former princely territories.

• The Constitution of India, 1950, made India a Union of States, bringing the territories of the former princely states into one constitutional structure [5]. [5]
• The White Paper recorded that all rights, authority and jurisdiction of the erstwhile rulers were vested in the Patiala and East Punjab States Union, and all assets and liabilities of the covenanting states became the assets and liabilities of the Union [10]. [10]
• The Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 ended the recognition of rulers and the privy purse payments guaranteed under Articles 291 and 362 [7]. [7]
• The Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950 extended central enactments to Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur and Tripura, bringing them under the same laws as states [4]. [4]

Step by step

1. 1947-08-09
   The Maharaja of Mysore executed an Instrument of Accession; it was accepted by the Governor General of India on 16 August 1947, to take effect from 1 June 1949 [6][7]. [6][7]
2. 1947-08-16
   Rulers of all individual States were persuaded to enter into an instrument of accession dated 16 August 1947 with the Government of India, covering defence, external affairs and communication [10]. [10]
3. 1948-05-05
   Seven rulers, including the Maharaja of Kapurthala, executed a covenant merging their states into the Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU); the Government of India concurred and guaranteed all its provisions, signed by V.P. Menon, Secretary in the Ministry of States [10]. [10]
4. 1948-07-15
   The Patiala and East Punjab States Union was inaugurated, as recorded in the White Paper on Indian States [10]. [10]
5. 1949-01-01
   The Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949 was made by the Government of Orissa for administration of Mayurbhanj State [11]. [11]
6. 1950-01-23
   The Government of India and the Maharaja of Mysore entered into an agreement on properties and privy purse [7]. [7]
7. 1950-01-26
   The Constitution of India commenced; India became a Union of States [5]. [5]
8. 1950-04-16
   The Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950 came into force, allowing the Central Government to extend enactments to Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur and Tripura [4]. [4]
9. 1951-01-08
   The Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of States communicated acceptance of the inventory of the Maharaja of Mysore's private properties [7]. [7]
10. 1971
    The Constitution (Twenty-sixth Amendment) Act omitted Articles 291 and 362 and inserted Article 363-A, ending recognition of rulers and privy purse guarantees [7]. [7]
11. 2004-09-09
    The Supreme Court in Draupadi Devi v Union of India referred to the White Paper on Indian States and quoted paragraph 157 on settlement of rulers' private properties [10]. [10]

The documents

1. [1] Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Constitution of India, 1950 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 1 in Constitution of India, 1950 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] R. Viswanathan And Ors. vs S. Abdul Wajid And Ors. on 23 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wodeyar, ... vs State Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947 Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Maharaja Jagat Singh vs Lt. Col. Bhawani Singh And Others on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Draupadi Devi & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 September, 2004 Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] Administration of Mayurbhanj State Order, 1949 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Regarding Manipur Merger Agreement Signed Between Erstwhile ... Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

The President of India referred three questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143 about the validity of section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912 and related extension-of-laws Acts. Chief Justice Harilal Kania and Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan delivered the advisory opinion on 23 May 1951. The Court upheld delegated legislation but held that the legislature cannot delegate its essential function of determining policy and making binding rules.

What it meant for the country

The opinion secured a constitutional limit on delegation: Parliament may allow the executive to make subordinate rules, but cannot hand over its essential job of setting policy and binding rules.

• The opinion established that the essential legislative function — determining policy and formulating binding rules — cannot be delegated to any outside agency, preserving Parliament's law-making role. [10]
• The Court upheld delegated legislation as within the powers of Indian legislatures, allowing the executive to make rules within the limits set by the legislature. [6]

Step by step

1. 1912-09-18
   The Delhi Laws Act, 1912 was enacted; section 7 allowed extension of enactments in force in other provinces with modifications and restrictions. [9]
2. 1951
   The President of India made a reference under Article 143(1) asking the Supreme Court about the validity of section 7 of the Delhi Laws Act, 1912, the Ajmer-Merwara (Extension of Laws) Act, 1947, and the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1951. [1][11]
3. 1951-05-23
   The Supreme Court delivered its advisory opinion in In re Delhi Laws Act, 1912, answering the three questions referred by the President. [11]

The documents

1. [1] In The Matter Of: Under Article 143 Of The ... vs Unknown on ... Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Article 143 (2) in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Article 143 (1) in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 143 in Constitution of India, 1950 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] State vs Haidarali on 3 May, 1957 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Mannalal Lacchiram And Sons Private ... vs Gram Panchayat ... Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] R. Veerayya And M. Siddalingaiah And ... vs State Of Andhra ... Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Delhi Laws Act, 1912 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] Achchelal S/O Lallulal Lohar vs Janpada Sabha And Anr. on 6 ... Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] In Re: The Delhi Laws Act, 1912, The ... vs Unknown on 23 May, 1951 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] Presidential Reference Under Article 143: Process ... Web, iasexpress.net

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

Parliament passed the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and then amended it several times. In 1996 it added a paid holiday on polling day, election observers, and a limit of two constituencies for a candidate; in 2002 it inserted a new Section 33A; in 2003 it allowed postal or proxy voting for specified groups, including people in preventive detention; and in 2004 it made further changes to the 1950 and 1951 election laws. Section 61A also gives the Election Commission the power to use voting machines in specified constituencies.

What it meant for the country

The law and its amendments expanded access to voting and strengthened election procedures, including a paid holiday on polling day, the use of voting machines, and postal or proxy voting for specified voters.

• Every person employed in any business, trade, industrial undertaking or other establishment who is entitled to vote must be granted a holiday on polling day; if the person would not ordinarily receive wages for that day, they must still be paid the wages they would have drawn. An employer who violates this can be fined up to five hundred rupees. [1]
• The Election Commission may adopt voting machines to record votes in a constituency or constituencies, taking account of the circumstances of each case. [9]
• The 2003 amendment enabled specified classes of voters, including some service voters, their wives, notified classes, and persons subjected to preventive detention, to vote by postal ballot or proxy rather than only in person. [10]

Step by step

1. 1951
   The Representation of the People Act, 1951, is referred to as Act 43 of 1951 in the 1996 amendment to that Act. [8]
2. 1996
   Parliament passed the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1996. It inserted Section 20B on election observers, changed Section 30 to shorten the election timetable, added Section 33(7) limiting a candidate to two constituencies in specified elections, changed penalties in the 1950 Act, and inserted Section 135B on a paid holiday on polling day. [8]
3. 2002-08-24
   The Representation of the People (Third Amendment) Act, 2002 came into force, inserting a new Section 33A after Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. [11]
4. 2003
   The Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 amended Section 59 of the 1951 Act so that proxy voting is received only where the Act expressly provides. It also introduced special procedures for voting by postal ballot or proxy for specified classes, including persons in preventive detention, and added a proviso to Section 171D of the Indian Penal Code for authorised proxies. [10]
5. 2004-01-01
   The Representation of the People (Second Amendment) Act, 2003, numbered Act 2 of 2004 and dated 1 January 2004, further amended the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Representation of the People Act, 1951. [12]

The documents

1. [1] Section 135B in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 100 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Section 127 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 81 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Section 86 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Section 8 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Section 123 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 Court, indiankanoon.org
8. [8] The Representation Of The People (Amendment) Act, 1996 Court, indiankanoon.org
9. [9] Section 61A in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 Court, indiankanoon.org
10. [10] The Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
11. [11] The Representation Of The People (Third Amendment) Act, 2002 Court, indiankanoon.org
12. [12] THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 2003 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 1 Oct 2026

What was done

The Congress government, in the Provisional Parliament, enacted the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. Section 3 of the Act substituted Article 19(2) of the Constitution, adding 'the sovereignty and integrity of India' to the grounds on which the State may restrict freedom of speech and expression, with retrospective effect; the Act also inserted Articles 31A and 31B.

What it meant for the country

The documents record that after the Supreme Court held two press censorship actions unconstitutional in 1950, the Constitution was amended in 1951 to widen the grounds for restricting freedom of speech, narrowing a fundamental right, and the Supreme Court upheld the amendment.

• The Supreme Court held that attempts to censor the press were unconstitutional, in Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi (March 1950) and Romesh Thappar v State of Madras (May 1950), as reported by Indian Kanoon's editorial note on Article 19(1)(a). [5]
• The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 substituted Article 19(2), adding 'the sovereignty and integrity of India' to the grounds permitting restrictions on freedom of speech, with retrospective effect, thereby narrowing the protection given to free expression. [2]
• The Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment on 5 October 1951, confirming the Provisional Parliament's competence to amend the Constitution and the validity of Articles 31A and 31B. [6]

Step by step

1. 1950-01-26
   The Constitution of India came into force, with Article 19(1)(a) guaranteeing citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression and Article 19(2) listing the grounds for reasonable restrictions on that right. [3][4]
2. 1950-03
   Brij Bhushan v State of Delhi: the Supreme Court held an initial attempt to censor the press unconstitutional, as reported in an Indian Kanoon editorial note on Article 19(1)(a). [5]
3. 1950-05
   Romesh Thappar v State of Madras: the Supreme Court again held an attempt to censor the press unconstitutional, as reported in the same editorial note. [5]
4. 1951
   Parliament enacted the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951; the Act's short title is recorded in Section 1. [7]
5. 1951
   By Section 3 of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, Article 19(2) was substituted, adding 'the sovereignty and integrity of India' to the grounds on which freedom of speech and expression may be restricted, with retrospective effect. [2]
6. 1951-10-05
   Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v Union of India: the Supreme Court, in a judgment by Patanjali Sastri J, upheld the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, holding the Provisional Parliament competent to exercise the power of amending the Constitution and holding that Articles 31A and 31B do not curtail the powers of the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Articles 32, 132 and 136. [6]

The documents

1. [1] Article 19 (2) in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
2. [2] Section 19 (2) in Constitution of India, 1950 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
3. [3] Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
4. [4] Section 19 in Constitution of India, 1950 - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
5. [5] Article 19 (1) (a) in Constitution of India - Indian Kanoon Court, indiankanoon.org
6. [6] Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union Of India And State Of ... Court, indiankanoon.org
7. [7] Section 1 in THE CONSTITUTION (FIRST AMENDMENT) ACT, 1951 Court, indiankanoon.org

Compiled from the documents cited, 30 Sept 2026