Formation of new states

Also called: Article 3 · Topic: Federalism and Centre-State Relations · NCERT: Class 11, Ch 7 "Federalism"; Class 11, Ch 9 "Constitution as a Living Document"

Meaning

Formation of new states is Parliament's power under Article 3 to make a new state, or to change the area, boundaries or name of an existing state (and, since 1966, of a Union territory). Parliament does this by an ordinary law passed by simple majority. The bill needs the President's recommendation, and the President must first send it to the affected state legislature for its views. Those views are not binding.

This power lets India redraw its internal map without a constitutional amendment. It is the reason India is called an "indestructible Union of destructible states".

Explanation

What Parliament can do under Article 3

• (a) Form a new state in any of these ways:
• separate territory from a state;
• join two or more states, or parts of states;

• join any territory to a part of a state.

• (b) Increase the area of a state.

• (c) Reduce the area of a state.
• (d) Change a state's boundaries.
• (e) Change a state's name.
• Two Explanations added by the 18th Amendment (1966) [9]:
• "State" in clauses (a) to (e) includes a Union territory (UT). A UT is an area run directly by the Centre through an Administrator or Lieutenant Governor.
• The power to form a new state includes joining part of a state or UT to another state or UT.

The procedure, step by step

Step	What happens	Majority or time limit
1	The bill can be introduced in Parliament only on the President's recommendation	—
2	The President refers the bill to the affected state legislature for its views	Within the period the President fixes (5th Amendment, 1955)
3	The state legislature gives its views	Advisory only. Parliament does not have to follow them
4	Parliament passes the bill	Simple majority (more than half of members present and voting), like any ordinary law
5	If Parliament changes the bill, it need not send it back to the state	Babulal Parate (1960)

• UTs get no reference. The proviso to Art. 3 speaks only of state legislatures. So a UT has no right to be consulted.

Article 4: why this is not a "constitutional amendment"

• A law under Art. 2 or Art. 3 can change:
• the First Schedule, which lists the names and areas of states and UTs;

• the Fourth Schedule, which gives the number of Rajya Sabha seats for each state.

• It can also contain supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions. Examples are seats in Parliament and the state legislature, courts, and the division of assets and debts.

• Art. 4(2): such a law is not an amendment under Art. 368. Art. 368 is the special procedure for amending the Constitution. So a simple majority is enough.

Limits of the power

• Inside India only. Art. 3 changes states that are already part of India. Taking in or setting up states from territory outside India falls under Art. 2.
• Giving land to a foreign country is not allowed under Art. 3.
• In re Berubari (1960): the Supreme Court held that the power to "reduce the area of a state" does not cover handing Indian territory to another country.

• That needs an Art. 368 constitutional amendment.

• No right to leave the Union. Parliament can redraw a state even against its wishes, but no state can leave India.

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits: Part I of the Constitution.
• Art. 1 calls India a "Union of States" and lists its territory: the states, the UTs and acquired territories.
• Art. 2 covers new territory from outside.
• Art. 3 covers the redrawing of existing states.
• Art. 4 makes such laws simple-majority laws.

• The First Schedule lists the states and UTs. India now has 28 states and 8 UTs.

• Constituent Assembly debate: draft Art. 3 was debated on 17-18 November 1948 and 13 October 1949. One member argued that any change should start in the state's own legislature, after its people were consulted. The Assembly kept the power with Parliament [7].

• States Reorganisation Act, 1956: passed after the States Reorganisation Commission (1953). It redrew states mainly by language. Before this, Potti Sriramulu's death during his fast (1952) had led to Andhra State (1953).
• New states formed since 1956:
• 1960: Gujarat and Maharashtra (Bombay split by language).
• 1966: Punjab and Haryana (language and religion).
• 1972: Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura.
• 1987: Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, and Goa (a former UT made a state).
• 2000: Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand.

• 2014: Telangana.

• Renaming under Art. 3(e):

• Madras → Tamil Nadu (1969)
• Mysore → Karnataka (1973)
• Orissa → Odisha (2011)

• West Bengal's proposal to become "Bangla" and Kerala's proposal to become "Keralam" are pending.

• Andhra Pradesh bifurcation (2014):

• The A.P. assembly rejected the bill. Parliament passed it anyway, because the state's views do not bind Parliament.
• The bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 13 February 2014. The Lok Sabha passed it on 18 February 2014 and the Rajya Sabha on 20 February 2014 [4].
• Telangana was formed from 10 districts, including Hyderabad [4].
• Hyderabad became the common capital for 10 years, and Telangana's capital alone after that [4].

• Telangana got 17 Lok Sabha, 7 Rajya Sabha and 119 Assembly seats. Andhra Pradesh kept 25, 11 and 175 [4].

• J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019:

• On 31 October 2019 the state was split into the UT of J&K (with a legislature) and the UT of Ladakh (without a legislature) [5].
• J&K was under President's rule at the time. President's rule (Art. 356) means the Union government runs a state for a time when its government cannot work under the Constitution. So Parliament gave the "views" in place of the state legislature.

• Over 890 Central laws were then extended to the region [10].

• In re Article 370 (11 December 2023):

• The Supreme Court upheld the creation of the UT of Ladakh. It relied on Art. 3(a) read with Explanation I, which allows a UT to be formed from part of a state [6].
• It did not decide whether a whole state can be turned into a UT, because the Centre said J&K's statehood would be restored [6].

• It directed the Election Commission to hold J&K assembly elections by 30 September 2024 [6].

• Land Boundary Agreement (100th Amendment, 2015):

• India used a constitutional amendment, not Art. 3, because Art. 3 cannot be used to transfer territory to another country [3].
• 111 Indian enclaves were exchanged for 51 Bangladeshi enclaves [2][3]. An enclave is a small piece of one country's land surrounded by the other country.

Don't confuse with

• Article 2 vs Article 3: Art. 2 admits or sets up new states from territory outside India (e.g., Sikkim by the 36th Amendment, 1975). Art. 3 redraws states already inside India.
• Art. 3 law vs Art. 368 amendment: an Art. 3 law changes the First and Fourth Schedules by simple majority, and Art. 4(2) says it is not an amendment. Giving territory to a foreign country needs an Art. 368 amendment (Berubari, 1960; 100th Amendment, 2015).
• US "indestructible union of indestructible states" (Texas v. White, 1869): in the USA, no new state can be formed from another state, or by joining states, without the consent of the state legislatures concerned and of Congress [8]. In India the state's views are only advisory.
• Autonomous councils (e.g., GTA 2012, BTR 2020): these give a region some self-rule inside an existing state, often on the Sixth Schedule model. They do not create a new state under Art. 3.

Prelims Hooks

• An Art. 3 bill needs the President's prior recommendation and only a simple majority. The affected state's views are not binding, and UTs are not consulted at all.
• 5th Amendment (1955): the President can fix a time limit for the state's views. 18th Amendment (1966): "state" in Art. 3 includes a UT [9].
• Babulal Parate (1960): no fresh reference to the state is needed if Parliament amends the reorganisation bill.
• Art. 4: laws under Arts. 2-3 amend the First and Fourth Schedules but are not Art. 368 amendments.
• In re Berubari (1960): "reducing the area of a state" under Art. 3 does not include giving territory to a foreign country. That needs a constitutional amendment.
• In re Article 370 (2023): upheld the creation of Ladakh UT under Art. 3(a) with Explanation I. It left open whether a whole state can be downgraded to a UT [6].

Mains Points

• Flexible federalism vs state autonomy:
• Arts. 3-4 let India redraw states peacefully, including the linguistic reorganisation of 1956. NCERT notes that linguistic states made India more united, not less.
• The A.P. split (2014) went ahead even though the assembly rejected it. In the J&K change (2019), Parliament itself gave the "views" during President's rule.

• Both show the risk of redrawing a state without its consent. The US model, where states must consent, is the opposite [8].

• New-state demands (Vidarbha, Gorkhaland, Bodoland, the 2011 UP four-state resolution):

• Smaller states can bring government and development closer to people (e.g., Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand).

• They also raise questions about money, shared capitals and rivers, and new minorities. Autonomous councils like the GTA and BTR are a middle path.

• Reform:

• Set up a second States Reorganisation Commission with clear, open criteria: financial viability, ease of administration, regional backwardness and the people's will. New states would then come from study, not from agitation or short-term politics.
• Give the affected state's views more weight, at least by making Parliament state its reasons for overriding them.

Related concepts

• Admission of new states
• First Schedule
• Indestructible Union of destructible states
• Land Boundary Agreement
• Linguistic federalism

Read more

• Territorial reorganisation: Arts. 2-4, linguistic states and new-state demands