Parliament’s Power to Reorganise States – UPSC Notes – Indian Polity

In India, the Parliament has special authority to reorganise states, like combining them, changing their borders, or even giving them new names. This power comes from Article 3 of the Indian Constitution. According to this rule, the Parliament can make new states by taking some land from existing states. The Parliament can also form a new state or union territory by connecting part of one state or union territory to another.

Empowering Parliament to Reorganise States

In the Indian Constitution, Article 3 delineates the authority for creating new states and making alterations to the areas, borders, or names of existing states. Under Article 3, the Parliament is empowered to:

(a) Establish a new state by separating territory from any existing state, uniting two or more states or parts of states, or joining any territory to a part of any state;

(b) Expand the geographical area of any state;

(c) Reduce the geographical area of any state;

(d) Modify the boundaries of any state;

(e) Change the name of any state.

However, Article 3 imposes two conditions: firstly, a bill proposing these changes can only be introduced in Parliament with the President’s prior recommendation. Secondly, before making the recommendation, the President must seek comments from the concerned state legislature within a specified period.

It’s noteworthy that the opinions of the state legislature are advisory, not binding on the President or Parliament, giving them the discretion to accept or reject them, regardless of when they are received.

Procedure for Changing the Name of a State

The process of changing the name of a state involves several steps:

1. State Legislature Resolution:
   • A resolution is first passed in the state legislature to initiate the name change.
2. Central Government Notification:
   • After passing the resolution, it is forwarded to the central government for consideration.
3. Authorization by State Assembly:
   • The state assembly, representing the people of the state, authorizes the state government to present the name change matter to the Government of India. This may also impact the Hindi translations of the state’s name.
4. Parliamentary Bill Requirement:
   • No bill for changing the state’s name can be introduced in either House of Parliament unless:
     • It is recommended by the President, and
     • The President has referred the bill to the Legislature of the affected State for comments within a specified timeframe or any additional timeframe allowed by the President. This is particularly crucial when the proposed changes affect the area, boundaries, or name of any state.
5. Schedule 1 Amendment:
   • The proposed name change will result in an amendment to Schedule 1. For instance, the entry 10 in Schedule 1 was altered from “Orissa” to “Odisha” when the state underwent this change.

Comments of Eminent Constitutional Philosophers

According to Prof. K.T Shah, the proposal to change an existing state should ideally originate from the concerned State Legislature, not the Parliament. He strongly believed that Article 3 compromised federalism by concentrating ‘unnecessary’ and ‘excessive’ power at the Centre.

On the other hand, K. Santhanam expressed concern that such a system could suppress minority demands for separate states, as it would be challenging to garner support for the separation of a state.

Conclusion

The Union and its Territory are the focus of Part I of the Indian Constitution, encompassing Articles 1 through 4. This section consolidates laws related to India and the union of states within the country. Unlike federations such as the United States or Australia, where the federal government cannot change state borders or names without state consent, Article 3 in the Indian Constitution underscores the vulnerability and dependence of states’ territorial integrity on the Union.

FAQs on Parliament’s Power to Reorganise States

1. FAQ: How does the Parliament in India have the authority to rearrange states, change borders, or give new names to states?

Answer: The authority for such actions comes from Article 3 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers the Parliament to establish new states, alter their territories, change boundaries, or modify names, subject to two conditions: a bill proposing changes requires the President’s prior recommendation, and the President must seek comments from the concerned state legislature within a specified period.

---

2. FAQ: What conditions does Article 3 impose on the Parliament when proposing changes to states?

Answer: Article 3 imposes two conditions: firstly, a bill proposing changes can only be introduced in Parliament with the President’s prior recommendation. Secondly, before making the recommendation, the President must seek comments from the concerned state legislature within a specified period. However, these opinions are advisory, not binding on the President or Parliament.

---

3. FAQ: How is the name of a state changed in India, and what role does the Parliament play in this process?

Answer: The process involves passing a resolution in the state legislature, forwarding it to the central government, and obtaining authorization from the state assembly. No bill for changing a state’s name can be introduced in Parliament unless recommended by the President, and the President has referred the bill to the Legislature of the affected State for comments within a specified timeframe.

---

4. FAQ: What are the steps involved in changing the name of a state in India, and how does it impact the state’s representation in Parliament?

Answer: The steps include a state legislature resolution, central government notification, state assembly authorization, and introduction of a Parliamentary bill recommended by the President. The proposed name change results in an amendment to Schedule 1 of the Indian Constitution. This process is essential for any changes affecting the area, boundaries, or name of a state.

---

5. FAQ: What were the concerns raised by constitutional philosophers like Prof. K.T Shah and K. Santhanam regarding the power granted to Parliament under Article 3?

Answer: Prof. K.T Shah believed that Article 3 compromised federalism by concentrating ‘unnecessary’ and ‘excessive’ power at the Centre. On the other hand, K. Santhanam expressed concerns that such a system could suppress minority demands for separate states, making it challenging to garner support for the separation of a state. These opinions highlight debates on the distribution of power between the Centre and the states.

Read complete Polity Notes – Click Here

Join our Official Telegram Channel HERE
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel HERE
Follow our Instagram ID HERE