Introduction & Summary
Article 4 of the Indian Constitution plays a crucial, albeit supplementary, role in the context of Parliament's powers to admit, establish, or reorganize states under Articles 2 and 3. It essentially provides the operational mechanism for these changes by clarifying that laws enacted for such purposes can include provisions to amend the First Schedule (names and territories of States and UTs) and the Fourth Schedule (allocation of seats in the Rajya Sabha).
Most importantly, Article 4 explicitly states that such laws, despite effecting changes to these schedules which are part of the Constitution, shall not be considered constitutional amendments for the purposes of Article 368.
This underscores the flexibility granted to Parliament in managing the territorial composition of the Union.
Core Content: Deconstructing Article 4
Article 4 of the Constitution of India states:
(1) Any law referred to in article 2 or article 3 shall contain such provisions for the amendment of the First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to representation in Parliament and in the Legislature or Legislatures of the State or States affected by such law) as Parliament may deem necessary.
(2) No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of article 368.
Components & Implications
- Article 4 is directly connected to laws made by Parliament under Article 2 (admission or establishment of new states from external territories) and Article 3 (formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing states within India).
- First Schedule: This schedule lists the names of the States and Union Territories and specifies their territorial extent. Any change under Article 2 or 3 will necessarily require corresponding changes. Article 4(1) mandates this.
- Fourth Schedule: This schedule allocates seats in the Rajya Sabha. When a new state is formed or an existing one altered, representation might need adjustment. Article 4(1) mandates this as well.
Beyond amending the First and Fourth Schedules, Article 4(1) empowers Parliament to include any other provisions that are supplemental, incidental, or consequential to give effect to the changes. This is a broad power:
- Apportionment of assets and liabilities.
- Continuation of laws in affected territories.
- Representation in Parliament (Lok Sabha) and State Legislature(s).
- Transfer of court proceedings.
- Adaptation and modification of laws.
- Allocation of civil servants.
The phrase "as Parliament may deem necessary" grants wide discretion.
Core of Article 4(2):
This clause is highly significant. It explicitly states that any law made under Article 2 or Article 3, even though it may result in amending parts of the Constitution (specifically the First and Fourth Schedules), shall NOT be considered a constitutional amendment within the meaning of Article 368.
Implications:
- Simple Majority Suffices: Such laws can be passed by a simple majority (like ordinary legislation), not requiring the special majority of Article 368.
- Increased Flexibility: Makes state reorganization relatively flexible and straightforward, enabling Parliament to respond to demands effectively.
- Reinforces "Indestructible Union of Destructible States": This ease of alteration underscores that states do not have an immutable territorial identity; their form is subject to Parliament's will.
- No Need for State Ratification: Bypasses the requirement of ratification by half of the state legislatures for these specific changes. (Note: Article 3 itself has a procedure of referring the bill to state legislatures for views, but these views are not binding).
Rationale behind Article 4(2):
- Framers anticipated frequent readjustments of state boundaries.
- Rigid Article 368 procedure would hinder integration and administrative efficiency.
- Provides a practical mechanism for the political map to evolve.
Prelims-Ready Notes
Key Points
- Article 4: Connected to laws under Article 2 (new states from external territories) and Article 3 (internal reorganization).
- Article 4(1): Laws under Art 2/3 shall amend First Schedule (names/territories of States/UTs) and Fourth Schedule (Rajya Sabha seat allocation).
- Allows Parliament to include supplemental, incidental, and consequential provisions (e.g., assets/liabilities, representation).
Implications of Article 4(2)
- Crucial clarification: Laws under Art 2/3 (even if they amend 1st/4th Schedules) are NOT deemed Constitutional Amendments for purposes of Article 368.
- Can be passed by simple majority in Parliament.
- No need for special majority under Art 368.
- Enhances Parliament's flexibility in territorial reorganization.
- Reinforces "indestructible Union of destructible states."
Summary Table: Article 4 Explained
| Clause | Provision | Significance / Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Art 4(1) | Laws under Art 2/3 shall amend 1st & 4th Schedules; may contain supplemental, incidental, consequential provisions. | Provides mechanism for operationalizing Art 2/3 changes; gives Parliament wide scope for necessary related provisions. |
| Art 4(2) | Such laws (under Art 2/3) are not deemed amendments of the Constitution for purposes of Art 368. | Allows territorial reorganization by simple majority; bypasses rigid Art 368 procedure; enhances parliamentary flexibility. |
Mains-Ready Analytical Notes
Parliamentary Supremacy in Territorial Matters
Article 4 significantly empowers Parliament in matters of forming, admitting, or reorganizing states. By exempting such laws from the rigors of Article 368, it places these decisions within the realm of ordinary legislation, albeit with specific procedural requirements of Article 3.
This reflects the framers' intent to give Parliament substantial leeway to reshape India's internal political map, ensuring national unity, administrative efficiency, and accommodating regional aspirations without insurmountable constitutional hurdles.
Relationship with Federal Principles
While Article 4 enhances flexibility, its implications for federalism are debated. The ease with which Parliament can alter state boundaries or create new states, without state consent or special majority, underscores the unitary bias in the Indian federal system.
However, this flexibility has also been instrumental in managing federal tensions by allowing for the creation of states based on linguistic or cultural identities, which might have otherwise led to greater conflict, thus serving a practical federal purpose.
Ensuring Smooth Transitions during Reorganization
The power to make "supplemental, incidental, and consequential provisions" under Article 4(1) is vital for ensuring a smooth transition when states are reorganized.
This allows Parliament to address complex issues like asset division, liabilities, civil service allocation, law continuation, and representation, minimizing administrative chaos and legal vacuum. Examples: States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
Judicial Interpretation
The Supreme Court has generally upheld the wide powers of Parliament under Articles 2, 3, and 4. In Babulal Parate vs. State of Bombay (1960), the SC clarified that Parliament is not bound by state views and can amend reorganization bills without fresh reference.
The clarity provided by Article 4(2) has minimized litigation challenging state reorganization laws on procedural grounds.
Strategic Importance of Article 4(2)
Without Article 4(2), every reorganization or admission of a new state involving changes to the First or Fourth Schedule would require a cumbersome Article 368 constitutional amendment. This provision ensures the Constitution remains adaptable to the evolving political geography of the nation, a testament to the framers' foresight in balancing unity and adaptability.
Current Affairs & Recent Developments
Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019
Supreme Court Judgment (December 2023): While primarily focusing on Article 370 and the validity of the reorganization under Article 3, the judgment implicitly affirmed the underlying principle of Article 4.
Parliament's power to make sweeping changes to the First Schedule (reorganizing J&K state into two UTs) and Fourth Schedule (Rajya Sabha seats) was an implicit backdrop.
The SC upheld Parliament's power to carve out a Union Territory from a State under Article 3, affirming the processes facilitated by Article 4.
Discussions on Delimitation
Whenever state reorganization occurs, or is anticipated (e.g., for J&K assembly, or post-women's reservation bill for Lok Sabha/Assemblies), the consequential matter of delimitation of constituencies becomes relevant.
Article 4(1) expressly allows Parliament to include provisions for representation in legislatures as a consequential matter, highlighting its ongoing relevance in administrative and electoral adjustments.
(Note: Article 4 is a procedural and clarificatory article. Its direct invocation in current affairs is usually linked to events concerning Articles 2 or 3. There have been no amendments to Article 4 itself recently.)
UPSC Previous Year Questions (PYQs)
Laws made by the Parliament for the formation of new states or alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states under Article 3 are NOT considered as amendments of the Constitution under Article 368. This is explicitly stated in:
- Article 2
- Article 3
- Article 4
- Article 368 itself
Answer: (c)
Hint/Explanation: Article 4(2) contains this specific clarification.
When a new state is formed in India, which of the following Schedules of the Constitution must necessarily be amended?
- First Schedule
- Second Schedule
- Third Schedule
- Fourth Schedule
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- 1 only
- 1 and 4 only
- 1, 2 and 4 only
- 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer: (b)
Hint/Explanation: The First Schedule (names/territories of States/UTs) and Fourth Schedule (Rajya Sabha seat allocation) are explicitly mentioned in Article 4(1) for amendment. Others are not necessarily or directly amended by state formation.
A bill for the purpose of creating a new State in India must be passed by: (UPSC CSE 2013, similar concept)
- a simple majority in Parliament and ratification by not less than two-thirds of the State Legislatures.
- a simple majority in Parliament.
- a two-thirds majority in Parliament and ratification by not less than two-thirds of the State Legislatures.
- a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
Answer: (b)
Hint/Explanation: As per Article 3, read with Article 4(2), such a bill requires only a simple majority in Parliament and is not deemed an amendment under Article 368. State ratification is not required (though views are sought).
Explain the significance of Article 4 of the Indian Constitution in the context of Parliament's power to reorganize states. How does it contribute to the flexibility of the Indian federal system?
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Briefly state what Article 4 is about.
- Significance of Article 4:
- Facilitates Consequential Changes: Mandates amendment of First and Fourth Schedules.
- Allows Supplemental Provisions: For smooth transition (assets, laws, representation).
- Exclusion from Article 368 (Art 4(2)): Core significance. Simple majority, no special majority or state ratification (for Art 368 purposes).
- Contribution to Flexibility:
- Makes internal territorial readjustment easier and quicker.
- Allows Parliament to respond to demands for linguistic states, administrative convenience.
- Reinforces "indestructible Union of destructible states." Enables evolving political map.
- Balance: While flexible, Article 3's procedure (President's recommendation, referral to states) provides checks.
- Conclusion: Article 4 is key enabler of parliamentary power, providing crucial flexibility for effective management of diverse internal geography, even if it underscores a unitary bias.
"Article 4(2) of the Constitution of India is a testament to the framers' foresight in balancing the need for national unity with the imperative of administrative adaptability." Discuss.
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Explain Article 4(2) – laws under Art 2/3 not deemed Art 368 amendments.
- Foresight of Framers:
- Anticipated need for reorganization in a diverse country.
- Understood that rigid amendment procedures would hinder this.
- Balancing National Unity:
- By making the Union indestructible and giving Parliament ultimate say, national unity is prioritized.
- Flexibility in reorganization can serve national unity by accommodating regional demands peacefully.
- Imperative of Administrative Adaptability:
- Allows for easier creation of more viable administrative units.
- Enables response to demographic changes or developmental needs.
- Simplifies changes to Rajya Sabha seat allocation and state lists.
- Avoiding Rigidity: Contrast with hypothetical scenario if Art 368 applied.
- Potential Criticisms (briefly): Could be seen as too much power to Centre, but framers deemed it necessary.
- Conclusion: Article 4(2) is a deliberate design choice reflecting framers' pragmatic understanding for effective governance and unity.
Original Questions
Which of the following best describes the primary purpose of Article 4(2) of the Indian Constitution?
- To ensure that state legislatures have a binding say in their reorganization.
- To mandate that any alteration of state boundaries requires a special majority under Article 368.
- To clarify that laws reorganizing states, though amending constitutional schedules, do not require the procedure of Article 368.
- To give the President final veto power over any bill reorganizing states.
Answer: (c)
Explanation: Article 4(2) explicitly states that laws made under Article 2 or 3 for state reorganization, which may consequentially amend the First and Fourth Schedules, shall not be deemed to be amendments of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368, meaning they can be passed by a simple majority.
A law passed by Parliament under Article 3 to diminish the area of a State and consequentially alter its representation in the Rajya Sabha:
- Requires a constitutional amendment passed by a special majority and ratified by half of the states.
- Requires a constitutional amendment passed by a special majority only.
- Can be passed by a simple majority and is not considered a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
- Requires the consent of the legislature of the State whose area is being diminished.
Answer: (c)
Explanation: Article 4(1) states that laws under Article 3 shall contain provisions for amending the First and Fourth Schedules (Rajya Sabha seats). Article 4(2) clarifies such laws are not deemed amendments under Article 368 and thus can be passed by a simple majority. State consent (d) is not required; views are sought but are not binding.
"Article 4 of the Indian Constitution acts as a lubricant, smoothing the process of territorial reorganization envisioned under Articles 2 and 3, thereby enhancing Parliament's agility in shaping the Union." Critically analyze this statement.
Key Points/Structure for Answering:
- Introduction: Explain the role of Article 4 as a supplementary provision to Articles 2 and 3.
- How Article 4 "Lubricates" the Process:
- Explicit power for consequential amendments (Art 4(1)): Mandates changes to First and Fourth Schedules, allows for supplemental provisions (assets, liabilities, laws, representation), ensuring comprehensive handling.
- Exclusion from Article 368 (Art 4(2)): Main "lubricant." Allows changes via simple majority, removing hurdles of special majority and state ratification (for Art 368 purposes), making the process quicker and more responsive.
- Enhancing Parliament's "Agility":
- Ability to respond to linguistic demands (e.g., SRC).
- Capacity to create administratively viable units.
- Flexibility in integrating new territories.
- Critical Analysis (Potential downsides or alternative perspectives):
- Does this agility come at the cost of federal principles by making states too "destructible" or centralizing power excessively?
- While views of states are sought under Article 3, the finality with Parliament can lead to perceptions of imposition.
- Has this agility always been used judiciously or sometimes for political expediency?
- Conclusion: Article 4 undeniably provides significant procedural ease and agility to Parliament in territorial reorganization, crucial for a diverse and evolving nation. While this contributes to the Union's strength and adaptability, the exercise of this power must be balanced with the spirit of cooperative federalism and due consideration for regional sentiments to ensure it truly serves national interest.