UPPSC 2024 Prelims GS Paper-I · Question 101 of 150

Correct — D, Altering the name of a State – Power of a State Legislature. The power to rename a State belongs to Parliament, not to the State's own Legislature. Article 3 lists five things Parliament may do by law: form a new State, increase the area of any State, diminish the area of any State, alter the boundaries of any State, and alter the name of any State. Renaming is clause (e) of that list, sitting in the same sentence and governed by the same procedure as forming a new State in clause (a). The State Legislature's role is consultative only: the proviso to Article 3 requires that such a Bill be introduced in either House only on the recommendation of the President, and only after the President has referred it to the Legislature of the affected State for expressing its views within the period he specifies. Those views do not bind Parliament, which may accept them, modify the Bill or ignore them altogether — and if the State says nothing within the period, Parliament proceeds anyway. So the option hands the power to the wrong authority and is the pair that is not correctly matched. Two further points make the rule stick. First, Article 4 provides that a law under Article 2 or Article 3, including the consequential changes it makes to the First and Fourth Schedules, shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 — a simple majority of Parliament suffices to redraw or rename a State. Second, the record bears it out: Madras became Tamil Nadu in 1969, Mysore became Karnataka in 1973, Uttaranchal became Uttarakhand under an Act of 2006 and Orissa became Odisha under an Act of 2011, and each of those was an Act of Parliament. The counter-example is just as instructive. The West Bengal Legislative Assembly resolved in August 2016 to rename the State 'Bengal' in English and 'Bangla' in Bengali; the Union Government declined the proposal, and as of 2026 the State's name is unchanged — because an Assembly resolution is a request, and only Parliament can enact the change.

• (a)Equality before Law – Guaranteed to both citizens and non-citizens — Correctly matched, so it cannot be the answer. Article 14 reads: 'The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.' The operative noun is 'person', not 'citizen', so the guarantee extends to foreigners on Indian soil and has been read to cover legal persons such as companies and corporations. The Article in fact contains two ideas of different ancestry — equality before the law, the British and Diceyan notion of the absence of special privilege, which is a negative concept; and the equal protection of the laws, the American notion of like treatment in like circumstances, which is positive. Both are available to any person.
• (b)Equality of opportunity in public employment – Guaranteed only to Indian citizens — Correctly matched. Article 16(1) reads: 'There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.' The contrast with Article 14's 'person' is deliberate drafting, and it is one of the most reliably examined distinctions in Part III: Articles 15, 16, 19, 29 and 30 are available to citizens only, while Articles 14, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 27 are available to any person. Article 16(2) then adds that no citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for or discriminated against in respect of any such employment or office.
• (c)Creating a new State – Power of Parliament — Correctly matched, and it is the pair that exposes option (d). Article 3(a) empowers Parliament by law to 'form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State'. Telangana, created by the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, is the most recent new State, and the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union territories in 2019 was carried out by the same parliamentary route. Because forming a State and renaming one are two limbs of the same Article, a candidate who accepts (c) is logically bound to reject (d).

Two different parts of the Constitution are being tested in one question. The first is who holds which right. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws to 'any person', so it reaches non-citizens and legal persons; Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment to 'citizens' only. The Constitution's choice of noun is the whole answer, and no further reasoning is required. The second is the territorial structure of the Union. Article 1 describes India as a 'Union of States'. Article 2 lets Parliament admit into the Union, or establish, new States — territory that is not already part of India. Article 3 lets Parliament reorganise what is already inside: form a new State out of existing territory, increase or diminish a State's area, alter its boundaries, or alter its name. Article 4 then provides that such a law is not an amendment under Article 368, so it passes by simple majority even though it rewrites the First Schedule.

The safe route through a 'not correctly matched' item of this shape is to check each pair against the actual noun in the constitutional text rather than against a general impression. 'Any person' in Article 14 validates option (a); 'all citizens' in Article 16(1) validates option (b). Options (c) and (d) then have to be read together, because both are drawn from the same Article 3 — one names its first limb, forming a new State, and the other names its last, altering a name. They cannot be matched to two different authorities, so one of them must be the answer, and it is the one that hands the power to a State Legislature. Behind the item is a settled description of Indian federalism: an indestructible union of destructible States. A State has no constitutional guarantee of its name, its area, its boundaries or even its continued existence, and its Legislature's opinion under the proviso to Article 3 is advisory. This is a deliberate contrast with the American federation, where the states' territorial integrity is protected against unilateral congressional alteration.

• Article 3 empowers Parliament by law to (a) form a new State, (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. Renaming is clause (e) — a parliamentary power, not a State power.
• The proviso to Article 3 requires that such a Bill be introduced only on the recommendation of the President, and only after the President has referred it to the Legislature of the affected State for expressing its views within a specified period. The State Legislature's views are not binding on Parliament.
• Article 4 provides that a law made under Article 2 or Article 3, and the consequential amendments it makes to the First and Fourth Schedules, shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368 — so a simple majority suffices.
• Every renaming has been done by an Act of Parliament: Madras became Tamil Nadu in 1969, Mysore became Karnataka in 1973, Uttaranchal became Uttarakhand under the Act of 2006, and Orissa became Odisha under the Act of 2011. By contrast the West Bengal Assembly resolved in August 2016 to rename the State 'Bengal' in English and 'Bangla' in Bengali, the Union Government declined the proposal, and as of 2026 the name is unchanged.
• Article 14 protects 'any person', including non-citizens and companies, while Article 16(1) is confined to 'citizens'. Articles 15, 16, 19, 29 and 30 are citizen-only rights; Articles 14, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 27 are available to any person.
• Article 1 describes India as a 'Union of States'; the most recent State formed under Article 3 was Telangana, by the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.

• Assuming a State Legislature can rename its own State. It can pass a resolution and it must be given the chance to express its views under the proviso to Article 3, but only Parliament can enact the change.
• Reading the proviso to Article 3 as a consent requirement. Parliament may proceed even if the State opposes the Bill, or if the State says nothing within the period the President fixes.
• Confusing Article 2 with Article 3, and slipping on 'person' versus 'citizen'. Article 2 covers admitting or establishing States from territory not already in India while Article 3 reorganises territory already inside it; Article 14 says 'person' while Article 16 says 'citizens', and prelims exploits both differences constantly.

UPPSC's preferred formats here are 'which pair is NOT correctly matched' and 'which of the following is NOT possible by a law of Parliament under Article 3', the latter asked in its 2020 paper. UPSC tends to approach the same Article obliquely — through the Schedules, asking which Schedule must be amended when a new State is created, or through the amendment procedure and Article 4.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  Under the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution of India, the views expressed by the Legislature of an affected State on a Bill altering its boundaries are

  • (a)binding on Parliament
  • (b)binding on the President
  • (c)not binding on Parliament
  • (d)required to be adopted by a two-thirds majority of that Legislature

  Answer(c) not binding on Parliament — the President must refer the Bill to the State Legislature for its views within a specified period, but Parliament may accept, modify or ignore them, and may proceed if no view is expressed in time.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  A law made by Parliament under Article 3 altering the name of a State

  • (a)requires ratification by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States
  • (b)is deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368
  • (c)requires a special majority in both Houses of Parliament
  • (d)is not deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 and may be passed by a simple majority

  Answer(d) is not deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 and may be passed by a simple majority — Article 4 says so expressly, even though the law amends the First and Fourth Schedules.