Which of the following statements with regard to the creation of a new state or alteration of boundaries of states is/are correct? 1. An amendment has to be moved in the Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution of India. 2. Ratification by one half of the states is necessary after the amendment is made by the Parliament. 3. The legislation can be passed by a simple majority of both Houses of Parliament. Select the correct answer using the code given below.
- (a)1 and 3 only
- (b)2 only
- (c)3 only
- (d)2 and 3 only
Correct — C, 3 only. Creating a State is done under Article 3, not Article 368, and it is done by an ordinary law. Article 3 lets Parliament form a new State, increase or diminish the area of a State, alter its boundaries or change its name; the only extra requirement is procedural — the Bill needs the President's recommendation and must first be referred to the legislature of the affected State for its views, which Parliament is free to ignore once the time allowed has run out. Such a law does amend the First and Fourth Schedules, but Article 4(2) settles the point in terms: no such law shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. So no special majority, and no ratification by the States. Only statement 3 survives.
- (a)1 and 3 only — Keeps statement 3, which is right, but adds statement 1. Article 368 is the amendment route; Article 3 is a separate power exercised by ordinary law, and Article 4(2) expressly says a reorganisation law is not an amendment for Article 368 purposes.
- (b)2 only — Ratification by half the States belongs to the entrenched proviso to Article 368(2), which covers matters such as the election of the President, the extent of Union and State executive power, and the representation of States in Parliament. Redrawing a State's boundary is not on that list.
- (d)2 and 3 only — Pairs the true statement 3 with the ratification claim in statement 2. The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014 passed as an ordinary law; no State was asked to ratify it.
Article 3 is the constitutional basis of every reorganisation since 1956 — the States Reorganisation Act of that year, the creation of Haryana in 1966, of Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand in 2000, and of Telangana in 2014. The consent of the State concerned is not required; only consultation is, and even that is bounded by whatever period the President specifies. Explanation I to the article makes clear that a Union territory counts as a State for the purposes of clauses (a) to (e).
Two of the three statements are built out of the same misunderstanding, that the map of India is entrenched. It is not: the framers deliberately made the States creatures of Parliament rather than parties to a federal compact, and the flexibility test in the standard textbooks turns on exactly this. If a candidate remembers only one thing, it should be Article 4(2), because it disposes of statements 1 and 2 together. Note also what the stem does not say — nothing about the affected State's consent, which is where a fourth statement usually lurks in this family of questions.
- Article 3 empowers Parliament to form a new State, alter areas, boundaries or names of existing States.
- A Bill under Article 3 needs the President's recommendation and must be referred to the affected State legislature for its views, which are not binding.
- Article 4(2) provides that such a law is not deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368.
- Creating a State requires amendment of the First Schedule, which lists the States and Union territories, and of the Fourth Schedule, which allots Rajya Sabha seats.
- Telangana was created by the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, passed by ordinary majority under this route.
- Assuming that anything touching a Schedule must be a constitutional amendment; Article 4(2) says otherwise.
- Importing the ratification requirement from the Article 368 proviso, which does not cover reorganisation.
- Confusing consultation of the State legislature with its consent — Parliament may act against its wishes.
As a statements item on the procedure under Article 3, or as a single-line question on which Schedule must be amended when a new State is created.
If a new State of the Indian Union is to be created, which one of the following Schedules of the Constitution must be amended?
- (a) First
- (b) Second
- (c) Third
- (d) Fifth
Answer(a) First
The same operation, examined on its paperwork. Creating a State does change the First Schedule, and the point this question adds is that changing that Schedule under Article 3 is still not an amendment of the Constitution.
- practice — not a real PYQ
A law made by Parliament for the formation of a new State is passed by which one of the following majorities?
- (a)Simple majority of members present and voting
- (b)Two-thirds of members present and voting
- (c)Two-thirds of members present and voting plus ratification by half the States
- (d)Three-fourths of the total membership of each House
Answer(a) Simple majority — Article 4(2) keeps a reorganisation law outside Article 368, so no special majority is needed.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Before a Bill for altering the boundaries of a State is introduced in Parliament, which one of the following is required?
- (a)The consent of the legislature of the affected State
- (b)The recommendation of the President
- (c)A resolution of the Rajya Sabha by two-thirds majority
- (d)The prior approval of the Inter-State Council
Answer(b) The recommendation of the President — the affected State legislature is only asked for its views, which do not bind Parliament.