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

Detail

1. India's territory: Article 1

• Art. 1(1) calls India a "Union of States". It does not call India a federation.

• Art. 1(3) lists three parts of India's territory: 1. the states; 2. the Union territories (UTs), which are areas run directly by the Centre through an Administrator or Lieutenant Governor; 3. acquired territories, which are any other areas India gains later.

• The First Schedule lists every state and UT and its area. India now has 28 states and 8 UTs.

2. Article 2: admitting or setting up new states

• Art. 2 lets Parliament, by law, admit into the Union, or set up, new states that were not part of India before. It covers territory from outside India. Art. 3 covers changes to states inside India.
• Sikkim:
• 35th Amendment (1974): Sikkim became an associate state, a special in-between status.

• 36th Amendment (1975): Sikkim became a full state, the 22nd state at that time.

• Acquired territories added to the First Schedule:

• 12th Amendment (1962): Goa, Daman and Diu, which came from Portuguese rule.
• 14th Amendment (1962): Puducherry, which came from French rule.

3. Article 3: forming new states and changing existing ones

• What Parliament can do under Art. 3:
• (a) form a new state by separating territory from a state, joining two or more states or parts of states, or joining 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.

• Procedure, in order:

Step	What happens	Majority or time limit
1	The bill can be introduced 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 gives its views. Parliament does not have to follow them	Advisory only
4	Parliament passes the bill	Simple majority (more than half of members present and voting), like an ordinary law
5	If Parliament changes the bill, it need not send it back to the state	Babulal Parate (1960)

• 18th Amendment (1966) added two Explanations to Art. 3 [10]:
• "State" in clauses (a) to (e) includes a Union territory.

• The power to form a new state includes joining part of a state or UT to another state or UT.

• UTs get no reference. The proviso requires a reference only to state legislatures, so a UT has no right to be consulted.

• Constituent Assembly debate: Art. 3 (then draft Art. 3) was debated on 17-18 November 1948 and 13 October 1949. One member argued that any change to a state should start in that state's own legislature and that its people should be consulted. The Assembly kept the power with Parliament [8].

4. Article 4: these laws are not "constitutional amendments"

• A law made under Art. 2 or 3 can change the First Schedule (names and areas of states and UTs) and the Fourth Schedule (Rajya Sabha seats for each state).
• It can also contain supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions. These include seats in Parliament and the state legislature, courts, and division of assets and debts.
• Art. 4(2): such a law is not an amendment under Art. 368, the special procedure for amending the Constitution. It needs only a simple majority.

5. Giving territory to another country needs a constitutional amendment

• In re Berubari (1960): Parliament's power under Art. 3 to "reduce the area of a state" does not cover giving Indian territory to a foreign country. That needs an Art. 368 amendment. The Preamble angle of this case is covered in preamble-philosophy.
• Land Boundary Agreement (LBA): this is the 1974 India-Bangladesh agreement on the land border. Its 2011 Protocol settled the details.
• The 100th Amendment Act (28 May 2015) gave effect to it [2].
• 111 Indian enclaves in Bangladesh (17,160.63 acres) were exchanged for 51 Bangladeshi enclaves in India (7,110.02 acres). An enclave is a small piece of one country's land surrounded by the other country [3][4].
• No compensation was paid for the extra area that went to Bangladesh [3].
• The enclaves were identified on jointly verified maps signed in April 1997 [3].
• A joint headcount (14-17 July 2011) found 51,549 people living in the enclaves. Of these, 37,334 were in Indian enclaves and 14,215 in Bangladeshi enclaves [3].
• The government used an amendment because transferring territory to another country cannot be done under Art. 3 [3].

6. "Indestructible Union of destructible states"

• Meaning: the Union of India cannot be broken up, and no state has a right to leave it. But Parliament can redraw, divide, merge or rename any state by ordinary law, even against that state's wishes.
• USA, the reverse: the USA is an "indestructible union of indestructible states" (Texas v. White, 1869).

• Under Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution, no new state can be formed from another state, or by joining states, without the consent of the state legislatures concerned and of Congress [9].

• 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 [5].
• Telangana was formed from 10 districts, including Hyderabad [5].
• Hyderabad was made the common capital for 10 years. After that it became Telangana's capital only [5].
• Seats after the split [5]:

	Lok Sabha	Rajya Sabha	Assembly
Andhra Pradesh	25	11	175
Telangana	17	7	119

• J&K reorganisation (2019):
• J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019: the state was split on 31 October 2019 into two UTs [6]:
  • the UT of J&K, with a legislature;
  • the UT of Ladakh, without a legislature.
• J&K was under President's rule (rule from the Centre after the state government cannot work by the Constitution) at the time. So Parliament gave the "views" in place of the state legislature.

• Over 890 Central laws were then extended to the region [11].

• In re Article 370 (11 December 2023):

• The Supreme Court upheld carving out 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 [7].
• It did not decide whether a whole state can be turned into a UT. This was because the Centre said J&K's statehood would be restored [7].
• It directed the Election Commission to hold J&K assembly elections by 30 September 2024 [7].
• More detail is in special-provisions-scheduled-areas.

7. Linguistic states

• Linguistic federalism: state boundaries are drawn mainly around one major language, so that people can be governed and educated in their own language.
• Background:
• The national movement promised linguistic provinces. The Congress reorganised its own provincial committees by language in 1920.
• After 1947, leaders were cautious because they feared another split like Partition.
• Potti Sriramulu's death during his fast (1952) led to Andhra State (1953).

• The States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was set up in 1953, and the States Reorganisation Act was passed in 1956. The full history is in nation-building.

• States created since 1956:

Year	State(s)	Basis
1960	Gujarat, Maharashtra (split of Bombay)	Language
1966	Punjab, Haryana (and Himachal got areas)	Language and religion
1972	Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura	Tribal identity and region
1987	Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh	Ethnicity, border region
1987	Goa	Former UT made a state
2000	Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand	Tribal identity, geography, development
2014	Telangana	Regional backwardness and identity

• Not all states rest on language. Nagaland, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand were formed on ethnicity, culture or geography.
• Renamings 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. Check the latest status.

• NCERT's verdict (Class 10): many people feared linguistic states would break up India. In practice, they made the country more united and administration easier. The chapter's exercise uses a 2006 article by Ramachandra Guha on this.

8. Continuing demands for new states

• Vidarbha: the eastern region of Maharashtra. The demand is based on economic backwardness and claims of neglect.
• Gorkhaland: the Darjeeling hills of West Bengal. The demand is based on Nepali-Gorkha identity.
• First settlement: a hill council (the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council, 1988). An autonomous council like this is the kind used under the Sixth Schedule, which gives tribal areas their own councils for local self-rule.

• Later settlement: the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration (GTA), after the 2011 agreement. It was set up in 2012.

• Bodoland: in Assam.

• The Bodoland Territorial Council was created under the Sixth Schedule in 2003.

• The 2020 Bodo Accord formed the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR) in place of a separate state.

• Uttar Pradesh: in 2011 the UP assembly passed a resolution to split the state into four: Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, Awadh Pradesh and Paschim Pradesh. Parliament has not acted on it.

• Others: Saurashtra (Gujarat) and Tulu Nadu (coastal Karnataka-Kerala).
• Criteria debate (Class 11 exercise): what should a new state be based on?

Criterion	For	Against
Language	Matches culture and schooling; worked after 1956	Many states have big minority languages
Economic interest or backwardness	Gives regions their own budget and focus	Smaller states may lack enough revenue
Religion	—	Goes against secularism; risks communal division
Administrative convenience	Smaller units are easier to govern	Can be used for political gain

• Second SRC: many argue for a new States Reorganisation Commission. It would set common, open criteria, so that new states come from study rather than agitation or the politics of the moment.

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 2 deals with territory outside India (e.g., Sikkim). Art. 3 deals with changes inside India. This is a classic trap.
• Sikkim: 35th Amendment (1974) made it an associate state. 36th Amendment (1975) made it a full state.
• 5th Amendment (1955) let the President fix a time limit for the state's views. 18th Amendment (1966) made "state" in Art. 3 include UTs.
• The Art. 3 bill needs the President's prior recommendation and a simple majority. The state's views are not binding.
• Babulal Parate (1960): no fresh reference is needed when Parliament amends a 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): giving territory to a foreign country needs a constitutional amendment.
• 100th Amendment (2015): 111 Indian enclaves were exchanged for 51 Bangladeshi enclaves under the LBA [2][3].
• Texas v. White (1869): USA is an "indestructible union of indestructible states". India's states are destructible.
• In re Article 370 (2023) upheld the creation of Ladakh UT under Art. 3. It left open whether a state can be downgraded to a UT [7].

Mains Points

• Flexible federalism vs. state autonomy: Arts. 3-4 let Parliament redraw states by simple majority. This kept India together and allowed peaceful linguistic reorganisation. But the A.P. split (2014), passed after the assembly's rejection, and the J&K change (2019), made with Parliament standing in for a legislature under President's rule, show the risk of reorganisation without the state's consent.
• Linguistic states as nation-builders: early fears of break-up proved wrong. Accepting diversity reduced conflict and made administration in local languages easier (Class 10 NCERT, Guha). This is a model of "holding together" federalism (a federation formed by an existing country sharing power with its regions).
• New-state demands: smaller states can bring development closer to people (e.g., Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand). But they also raise questions about financial viability, sharing capitals and rivers, and tensions over minority groups. Autonomous councils (GTA, BTR) are a middle path.
• Reform: set up a second SRC with clear criteria (viability, administrative convenience, regional backwardness, the people's will). Consider making the affected state's views carry more weight, at least so that Parliament must give reasons for overriding them.