Given below are two statements, one is labelled as Assertion (A) and the other as Reason (R). Assertion (A): The President can recommend to the Parliament to change the boundary of any State after seeking views of the concerned Legislature of that State on the subject within a specified period. Reason (R): It is not mandatory for the President to accept the proposal of the concerned State Legislature. Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- (a)Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
- (b)Both (A) and (R) are true but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
- (c)(A) is false but (R) is true
- (d)(A) is true but (R) is false
Correct — B, both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A). Under Article 3 of the Constitution, Parliament may by law alter the area, boundaries or name of a State; such a Bill can be introduced only on the prior recommendation of the President, and where it affects a State's area, boundary or name the President must first refer it to that State's Legislature to express its views within a period the President specifies — so (A) is true. (R) is also true: those views are only advisory, and neither the President nor Parliament is bound to accept them. But (R) does not explain (A): the President's power to move such a proposal flows from Article 3 itself, not from the fact that the State's views are non-binding. They are two independent true statements about the same procedure — hence 'both true, (R) not the correct explanation', option B.
- (a)Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A) — Both statements are true, but (R) does not supply the reason (A) is true. (A) rests on Article 3's requirement of a presidential recommendation and reference to the State Legislature; (R) merely adds that those views are non-binding — a separate feature, not the cause of (A).
- (c)(A) is false but (R) is true — (A) is a correct description of the Article 3 procedure — a Bill altering a State's boundary needs the President's recommendation and the President must refer it to the concerned State Legislature for its views within a specified period. So (A) is not false.
- (d)(A) is true but (R) is false — (R) is also true: the State Legislature's views under Article 3 are advisory only and are not binding on the President or Parliament, so (R) cannot be called false.
Article 3 empowers Parliament to form new States and to alter the area, boundaries or name of existing States. Two conditions apply to such a Bill: it can be introduced only on the President's prior recommendation, and if it affects a State's area, boundary or name the President must refer it to that State's Legislature to express its views within a specified period. Crucially, those views are not binding — Parliament may accept, modify or reject them, which is why India is called 'an indestructible Union of destructible States'.
The trap is option (a): both statements mention the State Legislature's views, so they feel causally linked. But 'correct explanation' demands that (R) state the reason (A) is true. (A) is true because of Article 3; (R) is a distinct fact (views are non-binding). Two related true statements need not stand in a cause-and-reason relationship — recognising that gap is the whole point of this item.
- Article 3 lets Parliament form new States and alter the area, boundaries or name of existing States.
- Such a Bill needs the prior recommendation of the President.
- The President must refer it to the concerned State Legislature for its views within a period specified by the President.
- The State Legislature's views are advisory only — not binding on the President or Parliament ('indestructible Union of destructible States').
- President's prior recommendation (Bill introduced)
- President refers Bill to concerned State Legislature for its views (within specified period)
- State's views are advisory — NOT binding
- Parliament passes by simple majority (Art. 4); First Schedule amended
Both (A) and (R) are true; (R) — views non-binding — is a separate feature, not the reason for (A).
- Assuming the State Legislature's consent (rather than mere 'views') is required
- Treating two related true statements as automatically cause-and-reason
UPPSC/UPSC test Article 3 as 'is the State's consent needed?' and through assertion-reason items on the President's and Parliament's role in altering State boundaries.
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
Both test the constitutional mechanism for creating/altering States under Article 3-4 — here the First Schedule (list of States) is amended when a new State is formed.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Under which Article can Parliament form a new State or alter the boundaries of existing States?
- (a)Article 2
- (b)Article 3
- (c)Article 4
- (d)Article 368
Answer(b) Article 3 — power to form new States and alter areas, boundaries or names.
- practice — not a real PYQ
While reorganising States under Article 3, the views of the concerned State Legislature are:
- (a)binding on Parliament
- (b)binding on the President
- (c)advisory only, not binding
- (d)required to be ratified by half the States
Answer(c) advisory only, not binding on the President or Parliament.