Discuss the constitutional process under Article 3 for altering the name of a State. Why does a similar renaming not automatically extend to constitutional bodies such as High Courts?

Article 3 makes State names alterable by ordinary parliamentary law, reflecting India's "indestructible Union of destructible States". The renaming of Kerala as Keralam in 2026 [1][2] illustrates the process — and the continuing "High Court of Kerala" illustrates its limits.

The Article 3 process

• Initiation is political, not mandatory: the Kerala Legislative Assembly's resolution of 24 June 2024 sought the change, but a State resolution is not a precondition [1].
• Union Cabinet approval of the proposal came on 24 February 2026 [1].
• Presidential recommendation is compulsory — no such Bill may be introduced in Parliament without it, and only in Parliament [1].
• Proviso to Article 3: the President must refer the Bill to the State Legislature for its views within a specified period; these views are advisory, not binding [1].
• Simple majority suffices: the Kerala (Alteration of Name) Bill, 2026 amended the First Schedule, treated under Article 4 as not a constitutional amendment [2]; Parliament passed it in August 2026 [3].

Why High Courts stand outside this

• Textual limit: Article 3 speaks only of areas, boundaries and names of States — it does not touch institutions created elsewhere in the Constitution.
• Separate legislative head: the constitution and organisation of High Courts falls to Parliament under Union List Entry 78, so renaming needs a standalone statute, as attempted by the High Courts (Alteration of Names) Bill, 2016 for Bombay, Calcutta and Madras [4].
• Judicial independence: a High Court is not a department of the State executive, so a Chief Secretary's renaming roadmap cannot bind it; the Calcutta High Court's Full Court declined the 2016 proposal, and that Bill lapsed [4].
• Continuity of proceedings: renaming requires express savings for pending cases and consequential amendments [4] — hence Bombay, Madras and Orissa High Courts retain historic names.

Renaming therefore expresses linguistic and cultural self-assertion within cooperative federalism, while judicial nomenclature stays insulated by design. A consultative statute — State recommendation plus the Full Court's concurrence — remains the constitutionally sound route, safeguarding both regional identity and separation of powers.