Union of States

Also called: Article 1, India, that is Bharat · Topic: Federalism and Centre-State Relations · NCERT: Class 10, Ch 2 "Federalism"; Class 11, Ch 7 "Federalism"

Meaning

Union of States is how Article 1(1) describes India: "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States". It means India is one country that cannot be broken up. The states did not create it by signing an agreement, so no state has the right to leave it.

It matters because these words set the base of Indian federalism. India shares power between the Union and the states, but the Union itself is permanent. The states, their names and their borders can be changed by Parliament.

Explanation

Why "Union" and not "Federation"

• The word "federation" is not used anywhere in the Constitution. Article 1 uses "Union" on purpose.
• Ambedkar's explanation (CAD Vol. VII, 4 November 1948): Ambedkar chaired the Drafting Committee. He presented the Draft Constitution on this day and said "the use of the word Union is deliberate" [2].
• India would be a federation. But it was "not the result of an agreement by States to join" it [2].
• So no state has the right to secede (the right to break away from India) [2].

• In his words, "The Federation is a Union because it is indestructible" [2].

• Lesson from the USA:

• The Americans had to fight a civil war to settle that their states could not secede.
• India's Drafting Committee made this clear "at the outset", so nobody could question it later [2].

What Article 1 says, clause by clause

• Art. 1(1): India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States. The Constitution gives the country two official names, "India" and "Bharat".
• Art. 1(2): the states and their territories are listed in the First Schedule.
• Art. 1(3): the territory of India is made up of:
• the territories of the states;
• the Union territories listed in the First Schedule;

• any other territory India may acquire.

• "Union of States" is narrower than "territory of India". The Union of States covers only the states. The territory of India also covers Union territories and any land India acquires later.

Indestructible Union, destructible states

• The Union is permanent. In S.R. Bommai (1994), Justice K. Ramaswamy held that the Union is "permanent within the territorial limits set in Article 1" and is "indestructible" [3].
• A state is not permanent:
• A state is "the creature of the Constitution" (the Constitution created it). It has "no territorial integrity" (no guaranteed right to keep its borders) [3].

• Parliament can change a state's borders by law under Arts. 2-4 [3].

• How Arts. 2-4 work:

Step	What happens	What is needed
1. Bill	A bill is brought to form a new state or change a state's area, borders or name	The President's recommendation is needed to introduce it (Art. 3)
2. State's views	The President refers the bill to the affected state legislature for its views (Art. 3)	The views do not bind Parliament
3. Passing	Parliament passes the bill	Simple majority only
4. Effect	Such a law is not treated as a constitutional amendment under Art. 368 (Art. 4)	No special majority and no ratification by states

Why the framers built a "holding-together" Union

• The situation in 1947: British-ruled provinces and more than 500 princely states, each with different ties to the British Crown.
• Government of India Act, 1935: it planned an all-India federation. The framers used its federal scheme as their model.
• Cabinet Mission Plan (1946): it offered a weak centre as a compromise to keep India united.
• Partition changed this:
• Once Partition was certain, the weak-centre plan was dropped.

• The Assembly's Union Powers Committee recommended a strong centre.

• The framers' three aims (NCERT): unity after Partition, development through central planning, and cooperation between centre and states.

• "Coming together" vs "holding together":
• In the USA, states came together by agreement ("coming together").
• In India, the Constitution created both the Union and the states ("holding together").

In the Constitution and practice

• Where it sits: Art. 1 (name and nature of the Union), the First Schedule (list of states and UTs), and Arts. 2-4 (admitting, forming and changing states).
• What it means in practice:
• Single citizenship: only Indian citizenship, with no separate state citizenship.
• One Constitution for the Union and all states.

• One integrated judiciary: the Supreme Court at the top and High Courts below it. Both enforce Union and state laws.

• States Reorganisation Act, 1956:

• Linguistic states (states drawn on the basis of the main language spoken) were created by a simple Act of Parliament under Arts. 2-4.

• This shows that state borders can be redrawn while the Union stays the same.

• Key cases:

• State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1962): West Bengal challenged a central law that acquired coal-bearing land owned by the state. The Court held that states are not sovereign units (they do not hold supreme power of their own), so Parliament can acquire state property.
• Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (1962): the Constitution "has certainly a bias towards Centre" [3].
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994, nine judges):
  • The Union is "indestructible" and states have "no territorial integrity" [3].
  • At the same time, federalism is part of the basic structure. Parliament can amend the Constitution, but it cannot destroy core features such as federalism [3].
  • Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy: states are not "mere appendages of the Centre". "Within the sphere allotted to them, States are supreme" [3].
  • One judge noted that Parliament can form new states and change their size. For this reason the Constitution is "more appropriately" called "quasi-federal" [3].

• Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006): a five-judge Bench restated these Bommai principles while examining Rajya Sabha elections [3].

• What scholars call it:

• K.C. Wheare called India quasi-federal (federal in form, but leaning towards the Union). He doubted India was "strictly and fully federal" because of the centre's "powers of intervention in the affairs of the States" [3].
• Ivor Jennings called it a federation with a "strong centralising tendency".

Don't confuse with

• Federation by agreement (US model): the US states came together by agreement, and their borders cannot be changed without their consent. India's Union was not formed by agreement, and Parliament can change a state's borders by simple law.
• Unitary state: in a unitary state, all power lies with one central government. India is still federal. It has a dual polity (two levels of government, each with its own legislature and executive), and powers are divided under Art. 246 and the Seventh Schedule. Only the Union is indestructible; the federal division of powers stays in place.
• Territory of India (Art. 1(3)): this is wider than the "Union of States". It also covers Union territories and any territory India acquires.
• Indestructible Union vs indestructible states: the Union cannot be broken up. A state can be split, merged, renamed or have its borders changed under Arts. 2-4 [3].

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 1(1): "India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States". Trap: the word "federation" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
• Ambedkar, 4 November 1948: the federation is a "Union" because it is indestructible, and no state has the right to secede [2].
• First Schedule: lists the states and Union territories with their territories. (The Fourth Schedule, a common trap, gives Rajya Sabha seats [3].)
• Arts. 2-4: Parliament can change state borders and names by simple majority. The state legislature's views are sought but are not binding. Such a law is not an Art. 368 amendment.
• S.R. Bommai (1994): the Union is "indestructible", states have "no territorial integrity", and federalism is part of the basic structure [3].
• West Bengal v. Union of India (1962): states are not sovereign, so Parliament can acquire state property.

Mains Points

• A deliberate design, not a defect:
• Partition, the merger of 500+ princely states and the need for planned development led the framers to choose an indestructible Union with a strong centre.

• Ambedkar wanted to avoid the US experience of a civil war fought over secession [2].

• Strong Union, but not weak states:

• Arts. 2-4 let Parliament redraw states, and this power has been used well, as in the linguistic states of 1956.
• But Bommai (1994) held that federalism is basic structure and that states are "not mere appendages" [3].

• The Union is permanent, while each state is protected only within its own sphere.

• Room for debate:

• Changing state borders needs only a simple majority, and the state's views do not bind Parliament. Critics argue this weakens the states' voice.
• Others argue that a holding-together Union needs this flexibility.
• Cooperative federalism (Granville Austin), the Sarkaria (1983) and Punchhi (2007-10) Commissions, and NITI Aayog's "partnership of states" (2015) show attempts to give states a bigger say inside an indestructible Union [4] [5].

Related concepts

• Dual polity
• Quasi-federalism
• Bargaining federalism

Read more

• India as a "Union of States": a federal design with a unitary bias