UPPSC 2020 Prelims GS Paper-I · Question 96 of 150

Correct — D, Admission of new States. Article 3 empowers Parliament, by law, to (a) form a new State by separation of territory from a State or by uniting territories, (b) increase the area of any State, (c) diminish the area of any State, (d) alter the boundaries of any State and (e) alter the name of any State. In short, it re-draws India's EXISTING States. What Article 3 does NOT cover is the admission or establishment of new States INTO the Union — that power sits in Article 2. So 'Admission of new States' is the one thing not possible under Article 3.

• (a)Formation of new States — Article 3(a) expressly lets Parliament form a new State by separating territory from, or uniting, existing States — so this IS possible under Article 3.
• (b)Alteration of areas of States — Article 3(b)/(c) allow Parliament to increase or diminish the area of any State — this IS possible under Article 3.
• (c)Alteration of boundaries of States — Article 3(d) allows alteration of the boundaries of any State — this IS possible under Article 3.

Part I of the Constitution (Articles 1-4) deals with the Union and its territory. Article 2 provides for the admission or establishment of NEW States into the Union (bringing in territory not already part of India — the route used for Sikkim). Article 3 provides for the reorganisation of EXISTING States — forming new States and altering their area, boundaries or names. Article 4 says such laws under Articles 2 and 3 amend the First and Fourth Schedules and are passed by a simple majority, not treated as constitutional amendments under Article 368.

The trap is the near-identical wording of 'formation of new States' (Article 3) and 'admission of new States' (Article 2). The distinction: Article 3 rearranges what is already inside India; Article 2 admits/establishes a brand-new State from outside. Three of the four options — form a new State, alter area, alter boundary — are literally the language of Article 3; only 'admission' belongs to Article 2, so it is the answer to this 'NOT possible under Article 3' question.

• Article 3 — Parliament may form new States and alter the area, boundaries or names of EXISTING States
• Article 2 — admission or establishment of NEW States into the Union (the odd one out here)
• A Bill under Article 3 needs the President's prior recommendation and must be referred to the concerned State legislature for its views (views are not binding)
• Article 4 — such reorganisation laws are passed by simple majority and are not deemed amendments under Article 368

• Confusing Article 2 (admission/establishment, external) with Article 3 (formation/reorganisation, internal)
• Assuming the affected State's consent is required — only its views are sought, and they are not binding

UPSC and UPPSC test the Article-2-vs-3 split, the President's prior-recommendation requirement, and whether a State's consent is binding.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  A Bill contemplating the reorganisation of a State under Article 3 can be introduced in Parliament only

  • (a)with the prior consent of the concerned State legislature
  • (b)on the prior recommendation of the President
  • (c)after approval by the Rajya Sabha
  • (d)with the consent of the Governor

  Answer(b) on the prior recommendation of the President — the Bill is then referred to the State legislature only for its (non-binding) views.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The admission or establishment of a new State into the Union of India is provided under

  • (a)Article 1
  • (b)Article 2
  • (c)Article 3
  • (d)Article 4

  Answer(b) Article 2 — Article 3 deals only with reorganising existing States.