4.3.1: Article 3: Parliament's Extensive Powers
Article 3 of the Constitution of India empowers the Parliament to by law:
Form a new State
By separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State. This power makes the territorial existence of states entirely dependent on the will of the Parliament.
Increase the area of any State
Parliament can add territory to an existing state, which could come from another state (whose area would then diminish) or from a Union Territory.
Diminish the area of any State
Parliament can reduce the geographical area of any state by ceding a part of its territory to another state or by forming a new state out of its territory.
Alter the boundaries of any State
This involves changing the existing boundary lines between states, often a consequence of increasing or diminishing the area of states or forming new states.
Alter the name of any State
Parliament can change the official name of any existing state. Examples: United Provinces to Uttar Pradesh (1950), Madras to Tamil Nadu (1969), Orissa to Odisha (2011).
Key Consideration
The powers under Article 3 relate to the internal readjustment of the territories of the constituent states of the Union of India. It does not cover the admission or establishment of new states from external territories (which is covered by Article 2).
4.3.2: Procedure for Reorganisation of States
Article 3 lays down specific conditions and procedural requirements for a bill contemplating the changes mentioned above. This process highlights the Union's power over states.
Prior Recommendation of the President
A bill seeking to make any changes under Article 3 can be introduced in either House of Parliament only on the prior recommendation of the President. This ensures executive consideration.
President must refer the bill to the concerned State Legislature(s)
Before recommending the introduction, the President must refer the bill to the legislature of the affected state(s) for expressing its views within a specified period. This is a consultative step, respecting federal principles.
Parliament is NOT bound by State Legislature's views
Crucially, Parliament (or the President while making the recommendation) is NOT bound by the views expressed by the state legislature(s). Parliament can proceed even if the state opposes the bill. Views are advisory, not mandatory. No fresh reference is needed for amendments.
Bill passed by a Simple Majority
A bill for the reorganization of states under Article 3 can be passed in Parliament by a simple majority of members present and voting in each House (like an ordinary piece of legislation). This underscores flexibility.
No separate amendment under Article 368 required
Article 4(2) explicitly states that laws under Article 2 or 3 (amending First and Fourth Schedules) are not deemed constitutional amendments for purposes of Article 368. This reinforces the "destructible" nature of states within the "indestructible Union."
4.3.3: Cession of Indian Territory to a Foreign State
A critical question arose whether the power of Parliament under Article 3 to "diminish the area of any State" also includes the power to cede Indian territory to a foreign country.
Berubari Union case (1960)
The Supreme Court held that the power of Parliament to diminish the area of a state under Article 3 does NOT cover the cession of Indian territory to a foreign country.
Article 3 deals with internal adjustments. Cession of national territory is an attribute of sovereignty and can be done, but it requires an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368. This is because ceding territory involves altering the territory of India as defined in Article 1 and the First Schedule, which effectively alters the Constitution itself in a significant way concerning national boundaries. Consequently, the 9th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1960, was enacted to give effect to the transfer of the Berubari Union territory.
Boundary Disputes vs. Cession
Supreme Court (1969) clarified that the settlement of a boundary dispute between India and another country does not amount to cession of territory (it's merely demarcation of an unclear line), hence it does not require a constitutional amendment and can be done by executive action.
However, the India-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) and 100th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2015, involved actual exchange of enclaves (cession/acquisition of de jure Indian/Bangladeshi territory), reaffirming the Berubari principle that actual cession of territory requires a constitutional amendment by amending the First Schedule of the Constitution.
Summary Table: Article 3 vs. Cession
| Aspect | Reorganisation under Article 3 | Cession of Territory to Foreign State |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Provision | Article 3 (and Article 4) | Article 368 (Constitutional Amendment) |
| Scope | Internal readjustment of states within India | Transfer of sovereign Indian territory to another country. |
| Parliamentary Majority | Simple Majority | Special Majority (as per Art 368) |
| State Legislature's Role | Views ascertained, but not binding | Not directly part of Art 368 process (though political consultation might occur) |
| Deemed Amendment (Art 368)? | No (Art 4(2)) | Yes |
| Supreme Court Guidance | --- | Berubari Union case (1960) |
Prelims-ready Notes
- Article 3: Parliament's Power (Internal Reorganization): Form new State (separation, uniting states/parts), Increase area, Diminish area, Alter boundaries, Alter name.
- Procedure under Article 3: Prior Presidential recommendation for bill; President must refer bill to concerned State Legislature(s) for views (within specified period); Parliament NOT bound by State Legislature's views; Bill passed by simple majority in Parliament; Not an amendment under Art 368 (as per Art 4(2)). Changes First & Fourth Schedules.
- Cession of Indian Territory to Foreign State: Article 3 does NOT cover cession. Berubari Union Case (1960): SC held cession requires Constitutional Amendment under Art 368. (9th Amendment for Berubari).
- Settlement of Boundary Dispute: Does NOT amount to cession; no amendment needed; executive action sufficient.
- India-Bangladesh LBA (100th Amendment, 2015): Involved cession/acquisition of enclaves, hence constitutional amendment was done.
Mains-ready Analytical Notes
Article 3 & "Indestructible Union of Destructible States"
Article 3 is the primary enabler of this concept. It gives Parliament immense power to unilaterally alter the political map of India. This aims to maintain national unity, accommodate linguistic and regional aspirations, and ensure administrative efficiency. While largely successful in managing diversity, it has also led to demands and agitations for statehood.
Federalism and Article 3
The provisions of Article 3 clearly demonstrate the unitary bias in India's federal system. The lack of requirement for state consent for altering its own boundaries is a significant deviation from classical federal principles. While justified by historical context and the need for a strong nation-state, critics argue it can undermine state autonomy and be misused. The referral to state legislatures is often seen as a mere formality.
Berubari Union Case – Significance
This case was pivotal in establishing that while Parliament can reorganize states within India with relative ease, parting with national territory is a far more serious act affecting sovereignty and requires a more rigorous constitutional process (amendment). It underscored that the power to "diminish area" under Article 3 is for internal adjustments and not for ceding territory to a foreign power. This distinction protects India's territorial integrity from being easily compromised by ordinary legislation.
Boundary Disputes vs. Cession – A Fine Line
The distinction is crucial. Pure boundary demarcation or minor adjustments based on agreed principles (without actual loss of recognized territory) can be handled by executive action. However, if a "settlement" effectively involves transferring territory that is de jure Indian, it would necessitate a constitutional amendment. The India-Bangladesh LBA is a case in point, where despite some calling it a "settlement," the actual exchange of enclaves was treated as requiring an amendment. This ensures parliamentary scrutiny and national consensus for any alteration of India's external boundaries involving transfer of territory.
Article 4 – Facilitating Reorganization
Article 4 plays a crucial role by clarifying that laws made under Articles 2 and 3, which necessitate changes to the First Schedule (list of states/UTs) and Fourth Schedule (Rajya Sabha seat allocation), are not to be considered constitutional amendments under Article 368. This greatly simplifies the process of state reorganization and admission of new states, reinforcing Parliament's flexibility in these matters.
Current Affairs & Recent Developments
Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation (2019) – Ongoing Implications:
While the Act was passed in 2019, its constitutional validity (challenging the process under Article 3 and abrogation of Article 370) was heard and upheld by the Supreme Court in December 2023 (In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution). The judgment touched upon Parliament's power under Article 3, the nature of consultation with the state (President's rule context), and the President's powers. The SC affirmed Parliament's power to carve out a Union Territory from a State.
Statehood Demands:
Occasional demands for new states (e.g., Vidarbha, Gorkhaland, Bodoland in the past) or for upgrading UTs to states (e.g., Puducherry, Delhi) keep Article 3 relevant in political discourse. The demand for Sixth Schedule status and eventual statehood for Ladakh also touches upon these themes of territorial reorganization and special status.
Boundary Disputes (Inter-State):
While Article 3 deals with Parliament's power, persistent inter-state boundary disputes (e.g., Assam-Mizoram, Maharashtra-Karnataka) highlight the complexities of internal boundaries and the need for effective resolution mechanisms, sometimes leading to calls for central intervention which could theoretically involve Article 3 if a legislative solution is sought.
UPSC Previous Year Questions
Prelims MCQs:
1. The Parliament of India can form a new state by separating territory from any state.
2. A bill for such a purpose requires the prior recommendation of the President.
3. The Parliament is bound by the views of the concerned state legislature on such a bill.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Options:
- (a) 1 and 2 only
- (b) 2 and 3 only
- (c) 1 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a)
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct (Art 3(a)). Statement 2 is correct (proviso to Art 3). Statement 3 is incorrect; Parliament is not bound by the views of the state legislature.
Options:
- (a) The Parliament
- (b) The President
- (c) The Council of Ministers
- (d) States’ Reorganisation Commission
Answer: (a)
Explanation: Article 3 explicitly vests this power in the Parliament to act by law.
Options:
- (a) A simple majority in Parliament only.
- (b) A constitutional amendment under Article 368.
- (c) An executive order by the President with the consent of the concerned state.
- (d) A resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament and ratified by all state legislatures.
Answer: (b)
Explanation: As held in the Berubari Union case, cession of Indian territory to a foreign country requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
Mains Questions:
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Explain Parliament's extensive powers under Article 3.
- Arguments for "Absolute" (or near-absolute) Nature: Can alter boundaries/names, form new states without state consent (views not binding); Simple majority needed in Parliament; Not deemed a constitutional amendment under Art 368 (Art 4(2)); "Indestructible Union of destructible states."
- Arguments Against "Absolute" / Conditions & Limitations: Procedural Conditions: Prior Presidential recommendation; referral to state legislature for views (though not binding, it's a mandatory procedural step); Judicial Review (Limited Scope): While courts don't generally interfere with political wisdom, they can examine if procedure was followed. Can also test against basic structure if an extreme reorganization impacts federalism fundamentally (though SC has usually upheld Parliament's wide powers here); Political Considerations: Public opinion, regional sentiments, federal amity often act as practical checks; Cannot Cede Territory: Article 3 does not cover cession to foreign state (Berubari).
- Conclusion: While Parliament's power under Article 3 is vast and gives it supremacy in internal reorganization, it is not entirely "absolute and unconditional" due to procedural requirements and the overarching framework of the Constitution, including potential (though rarely invoked for Art 3 itself) judicial review on basic structure grounds. Political considerations also temper its use.
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Mention Article 3 grants this power to Parliament.
- Procedure: Prior Recommendation of President: Bill can only be introduced on President's recommendation; Referral to State Legislature(s): President must refer the bill to affected state(s) to express views within a specified period; Views of State Legislature Not Binding: Parliament can accept or reject these views; Passage in Parliament: By simple majority; No Amendment under Art 368: (Art 4(2)).
- Role of President: Crucial for initiation (recommendation) and for referring to state(s) and setting time limit. Acts on aid and advice of Union Council of Ministers.
- Role of State Legislatures: Consultative role; an opportunity to voice concerns/opinions, but no veto power.
- Conclusion: The procedure balances central authority with a formal (though not binding) consultation with states, ultimately prioritizing Parliament's power in national interest and administrative convenience.
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Explain that cession of territory is a serious matter affecting national sovereignty.
- Article 3 Interpretation: Clarify that Article 3 (diminishing area) does not cover cession to a foreign state.
- Berubari Union Case (1960): Context (Nehru-Noon Agreement); SC Opinion: Cession requires constitutional amendment under Article 368 because it alters the territory of India as defined in Article 1 and the First Schedule; Consequence: 9th Amendment Act, 1960.
- Distinction: Settlement of Boundary Disputes: SC clarification (1969): Does not amount to cession, no amendment needed, executive action sufficient.
- Procedure for Cession: Constitutional Amendment Bill under Article 368; Requires special majority in both Houses of Parliament; If it affects federal features very directly, state ratification might also be argued for, though generally for altering external boundary, parliamentary special majority is key.
- Example: India-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement (100th Amendment, 2015): Context (exchange of enclaves, adverse possessions); Necessitated constitutional amendment due to transfer of territories.
- Conclusion: The Supreme Court has clearly established that ceding Indian territory is not a power exercisable through ordinary legislation but requires a formal constitutional amendment, ensuring greater scrutiny and national consensus for such a significant act.
Trend Analysis (Past 10 Years)
Prelims:
- Focus on the procedural aspects of Article 3 (President's recommendation, referral to states, simple majority).
- Questions on whether Parliament is bound by state views.
- Understanding that changes under Article 3 are not deemed amendments under Article 368 (Article 4).
- The Berubari Union case and its implication for cession of territory are important.
- Examples of state reorganization or recent changes (like J&K) can be background for conceptual questions.
Mains:
- Analytical questions on Parliament's power under Article 3, its impact on federalism ("indestructible Union of destructible states").
- Critical evaluation of the procedure and the balance between central authority and state consultation.
- The distinction between internal reorganization (Art 3) and cession of territory (Berubari case, Art 368) is a key theme.
- Questions often require citing examples of state reorganization and the principles/commissions behind them (though less on commissions themselves in this specific sub-topic, more on the constitutional power).
Original MCQs for Prelims
1. Ceding a part of Indian territory to a foreign country.
2. Altering the name of an existing Indian state.
3. Increasing the area of an existing Indian state by incorporating a part of another state.
4. Admitting Sikkim as an associate state into the Union of India.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- (a) 1 and 4 only
- (b) 2 and 3 only
- (c) 1 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (b)
Explanation:
- 1. Ceding territory requires amendment under Art 368 (Berubari case).
- 2. Altering name of state is under Art 3, which is not deemed an Art 368 amendment (Art 4(2)).
- 3. Increasing area of state by internal readjustment is under Art 3, which is not deemed an Art 368 amendment (Art 4(2)).
- 4. The admission of Sikkim, first as an associate state (35th Amendment) and then full state (36th Amendment), involved constitutional amendments under Article 368 to create special provisions and alter schedules.
Therefore, only actions 2 and 3 do not require a Constitutional Amendment under Article 368.
Options:
- (a) The Parliament is bound to accept the views if passed by a special majority in the State Legislature.
- (b) The President can veto the bill if the State Legislature unanimously rejects it.
- (c) The Parliament is not bound by the views and can proceed with the bill in its original or modified form.
- (d) The bill automatically lapses if the State Legislature does not express its views within the specified period.
Answer: (c)
Explanation: The Parliament is not bound by the views of the State Legislature; it can accept or reject them. The bill does not lapse if views are not given in time; Parliament can still proceed. The President cannot veto the bill on this ground; the power to enact rests with Parliament.
Original Descriptive Questions for Mains
Key Points/Structure for Answering:
- Introduction: Briefly state Parliament's powers under Article 3 and the dual perspective.
- Ensuring National Unity and Administrative Flexibility (Arguments for the Power): Rationale (historical context, partition), linguistic reorganization needs, addressing regional aspirations, creating viable administrative units; Examples (States Reorganisation Act 1956, creation of Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh, Telangana).
- Concerns about Erosion of State Autonomy (Arguments Against/Criticisms): States as "destructible units"; Procedure (views not binding, simple majority); Potential for political misuse by central government to destabilize or reconfigure states for partisan gains; Impact on federal balance and identity of states; Example (Discuss the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, and the debates surrounding the process and its impact on federalism and state autonomy).
- Constitutional Safeguards/Checks (Limited): Presidential recommendation, referral to states (consultative); Judicial Stance (Generally upholds Parliament's wide powers but emphasizes procedural fairness).
- Conclusion: Article 3 represents a unique feature of Indian federalism, prioritizing national interest and adaptability. While it has been instrumental in managing diversity and administrative needs, its application requires utmost caution and political consensus to mitigate concerns about arbitrary action and ensure the spirit of cooperative federalism is maintained, preventing genuine erosion of legitimate state autonomy.
Key Points/Structure for Answering:
- Introduction: Differentiate the nature of acquiring/admitting vs. ceding territory.
- Acquisition/Admission/Establishment (Article 2 & Article 1(3)(c)): Power: Parliament may by law admit/establish new states from external territories on terms it deems fit; Procedure: Ordinary law, simple majority. Article 4(2) applies (not Art 368 amendment for consequential schedule changes); Examples: Pondicherry, Goa, Sikkim.
- Cession of Indian Territory to a Foreign State: Power: Not explicitly mentioned as an ordinary legislative power. Seen as an aspect of sovereignty but with constraints; Judicial Interpretation (Berubari Union case, 1960): Article 3 does not cover cession. Cession requires a Constitutional Amendment under Article 368 as it involves altering India's defined territory; Procedure: Constitutional Amendment Bill (special majority); Examples: 9th Amendment (Berubari), 100th Amendment (India-Bangladesh LBA).
- Settlement of Boundary Disputes (Distinct from Cession): SC clarification: Does not involve cession; can be done by executive action; no constitutional amendment needed.
- Key Differences Summarized: Purpose (expansion vs. diminution of national territory), constitutional provision involved (Art 2/4 vs. Art 368), parliamentary majority, judicial scrutiny.
- Conclusion: The Constitution provides flexible mechanisms for expanding the Union (Art 2) but mandates a more rigorous process (Art 368 amendment) for ceding territory, reflecting the gravity of altering national boundaries and ensuring such actions have broad national consensus and parliamentary approval through a stringent procedure.