You would be pleased to find that in Parts VI and XII, “State” means the Provinces. In Part VII, “State” means Chief Commissioners’ Provinces. In Part IV “State” means Indian States. In Part III, “State” means a wonderful series of things. By means of article 7, “State” means first of all, the Government of India, secondly it means the Government of the States, meaning all the States, Provinces, Indian States and Chief Commissioners’ Provinces, and what is very remarkable, it also means local and other authorities. I suppose these are the municipalities, district boards and other autonomous authorities. I think the passion for a constitutional expression has gone too far. To call a district board, a municipality or a thing of that type as a “State” would be doing violence to language. If English is to remain the language in which the Constitution has to be embodied, I think we should have some respect for the accepted meaning of the word State. A State always means and implies a kind of sovereignty. It may be limited or it may be unlimited. Some kind of sovereignty is implied in the word State. But to call a district board or a municipality a State would be a misnomer. I think the passion for the use of the word ‘State’ should be checked. If it is a question of nomenclature, if we want to use the same expression for the Government of India and the States, we should distinctly mention the word municipality or district board and not allow these to be comprehended within the meaning of the all-pervading word ‘State’. If we allow the word ‘State’ to be used for all sorts of purposes, the very purpose of this well-known constitutional expression would be lost. I should think therefore that Honourable Members should look into this while drafting amendments. I find it to be an anomaly and it is difficult to find a substitute for this expression. I ask the co-operation of the Honourable members of this House to find a suitable expression for this. The expression has been defined to mean different things in different clauses. These are articles 1, 7, 28, 128, 212 and 247, according to which the word ‘State’ means different things. There is a danger of using a well-known expression to mean different things indifferent parts of the same statute. This may lead to confusion. It will be difficult for everyone who will have to deal with the interpretation of this Constitution or to understand this Constitution, to keep his head quite clear as to what is the sense in which the word ‘State’ has been used at a particular place. I submit, Sir, the ultimate purpose which seems to be lying behind this draftsmanship is the ultimate co-ordination and uniformity of all these different institutions. But at present, there is no need for this kind of indiscriminate use of the word ‘State’. I should therefore ask Honourable members to consider in giving notice of amendments, whether it would be better to stick to the old and well known expressions Provinces, Indian States and Chief Commissioners’ Provinces.
