It is a well-known principle of constitutional law that there should not be any preference for or discrimination against any of the Constituent States. In the Australian Constitution, as regards commerce and trading, section 99 lays down the Commonwealth shall not by any law or regulation of trade or commerce or revenue give preference to one State or parts thereof, over another State or any parts thereof. And again in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia section 51(2) prohibits any discriminatory treatment in the matter of taxation. In the United States, equality of constitutional right and power is a condition of the States of the Union. Even in cases where new States were admitted into the Union, it was held by the Supreme Court of the United States that no conditions creating inequality can be imposed by the Congress. Coyle-vs-Smith is a case to this point, wherein the Supreme Court held that even a condition agreed to by a State, at the time of its incorporation, becomes void, if the condition prevents the State from being an equal with other States. All constituent States in the Union are equal in power and in rights. In our Constitution we see that there is a discrimination made between States who were once knows as Indian States because of mere historical accidents, and the States which are known as the Provinces. Why, Sir, for a period of ten years should these States, which were known as Indian States, be under the complete control and management of the Centre? Is it the case that the Provinces are more progressive than the Indian States in India? I cannot agree to it. As all the speakers at the time of the discussion on article 371, said, many of the States are more advanced than Provinces. Therefore, I do not think there is a case that has been made out for including this article 371 and also article 365 in the Constitution as regards the Indian States. These provisions give a preferential treatment to the provinces as compared with the States.
