Under part XXI, Article 386 of Indian Constitution played a key transitional role during the early phase of independent India. It helped manage governance in Part B states, which were formerly princely states integrated into the Indian Union. This article allowed the Rajpramukh (head of a Part B state) to appoint ministers to the Council of Ministers. If appointments were not made immediately, the ministers who held office before the Constitution’s commencement would continue in their roles.

The intent was to ensure there was no administrative vacuum during the handover from princely rule to democratic governance. As a result, Article 386 of the Constitution of India helped stabilize state governance during a politically sensitive time.

However, with the large-scale reorganization of states in 1956, the transitional mechanisms were no longer needed. The 386 article was formally omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 as its purpose had been fulfilled. Explore in-depth analysis of other Constitutional Articles.

Article 386 of Indian Constitution: Council of Ministers for States in Part B of the First Schedule

Such persons as the Rajpramukh of a State specified in Part B of the First Schedule may appoint in that behalf shall become members of the Council of Ministers of such Rajpramukh under this Constitution, and, until appointments are so made, all persons holding office as Ministers for the corresponding Indian State immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall on such commencement become, and shall continue to hold office as, members of the Council of Ministers of such Rajpramukh under this Constitution.

Note: "The information provided above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders" 

Free Download 5 Key takeaways on Article 386 of Indian Constitution PDF

Article 386 of the Indian Constitution was crafted to manage executive power in Part B states. These were princely states that had joined the Indian Union and needed temporary governance structures until full constitutional integration.

This article 386 stated that the Rajpramukh (appointed head of the state) could select members for the Council of Ministers. Until such appointments were made, the ministers from the old princely governments would remain in office. This measure ensured uninterrupted administration.

It offered a structured approach for governance without democratic elections initially, but with the clear goal of transitioning toward constitutional democracy. The framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid chaos, especially in regions that had recently acceded to India or had been self-ruled.

Eventually, when elections and proper legislative structures were set up, the provision became obsolete. The Article 386 of Constitution of India served its purpose and was later removed by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 .

This approach reflects the thoughtful design behind the Constitution . It provided a temporary, controlled structure until India’s democratic framework became fully functional at the state level.

Article 386 of Indian Constitution: Purpose and Omission 

The purpose and reason for the omission of article 386 of the Indian Constitution is explained as under, they are-

Original Purpose:

Article 386 of the Constitution of India focused on Part B states listed in the First Schedule. These were former princely states like Hyderabad, Mysore, and others. The article ensured they had a Council of Ministers under the Rajpramukh, until democratic processes took over.

Rajpramukh and Ministers:

The Rajpramukh was empowered to appoint ministers . If the appointments were delayed the existing ministers from pre-Constitution days continued holding office . This ensured a seamless shift in power without disruption.

Effect of Omission:

When the states were reorganized and unified under a standard administrative and political framework, provisions like Article 386 lost relevance.

Omitted by the Seventh Amendment:

The Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 reorganized Indian states along linguistic and administrative lines. As a result, Article 386 of Indian Constitution became redundant and was formally omitted on 1 November 1956.

Though no judgment directly interprets Article 386 these cases show how transitional provisions influenced legal decisions :

1. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)

This case addressed the power of the central government over states, reflecting the shift from transitional control to federal democracy.

2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

In this case of S.R.Bommai , it focused on President's Rule and federalism, showing how India evolved from transitional mechanisms like 386 article to a democratic system.

3. Berubari Union Case (1960)

Concerned constitutional interpretation and territorial integration, echoing the purpose of provisions like Article 386 of Constitution of India.

4. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

Although focused on constitutional amendments this case underlined the strength and integrity of foundational provisions including transitional articles.

Article 386 of Indian Constitution: Significance

Article 386 of Indian Constitution was vital during India's transition from monarchy to democracy in former princely states . It helped integrate the administrative frameworks of Part B states into the Indian constitutional structure . By empowering the Rajpramukh to appoint ministers and continuing the tenure of existing ones it ensured governance continued without disruption.

This article helped the Indian government manage political integration smoothly, winning public trust and avoiding legislative chaos . Its importance lies in its role in stabilizing administration during a fragile period post-Independence .

The fact that the Article 386 of Constitution was removed in 1956 shows it had successfully served its role . Its omission marked India’s maturity in establishing uniform state governance and ending transitional arrangements .

Article 386 now serves as a historical reminder of the Constitution's flexibility in addressing India’s diversity and complexity during its formative years .

Article 386 of Indian Constitution : Developments and Amendments 

With the reorganization of Indian states in 1956 the role of Article 386 of Constitution of India ended. The Seventh Amendment brought major changes by consolidating the federal structure and abolishing distinctions between Part A, B, and C states.

States like Hyderabad, Mysore, and others that once had Rajpramukhs were brought into the mainstream constitutional framework. The need for temporary executive provisions, like those under article 386, disappeared.

The Seventh Amendment Act, 1956 made structural changes to state boundaries, legislative representation and removed outdated provisions. This included the omission of Article 386.

By removing such transitional articles, the Constitution became leaner and more aligned with India’s new reality as a unified and democratic republic. The omission of Article 386 of Indian Constitution reflected that India no longer needed provisional systems to manage governance.

It marked a move toward democratic consistency and away from royal or colonial legacies.

Conclusion 

Article 386 of Indian Constitution was a critical bridge between monarchy and democracy in India’s newly joined princely states. It allowed the Rajpramukh of each Part B state to appoint ministers or continue with the old ones until proper constitutional systems were in place.

This article prevented a power vacuum and ensured that the machinery of governance kept running during a pivotal time. It was a smart, transitional tool in a very complex political landscape.

However, by 1956, democratic institutions were fully operational. With the States Reorganization Act and the Seventh Amendment, India no longer needed these transitional structures. Hence, Article 386 of the Indian Constitution was officially omitted.

Today, it serves as a symbol of the Constitution’s adaptability and the framers’ foresight in planning for a smooth transition from princely rule to a modern republic. Although the 386 article is no longer in force, its role in shaping India’s constitutional journey remains significant.

Studying Article 386 of Constitution of India offers valuable insights into the planning and stability required to build a new democratic nation from the remnants of colonial and monarchical governance.