PROJECT ON

STATES IN INDIA

SUBMITTED TO :
MS. POONAM KUMARI
FACULTY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SUBMITTED BY:
ABINASH KUMAR
B.A.LL.B.(hons.), 2nd SEMESTER
2018-2023 BATCH
SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………………..3
TABLE OF CASES………………………………………………………………………………….4
CHAPTER – I INTRODUCTION……………....……………………..……………………….....5-6

 Research Methodology
 Aims & Objectives
 Research Hypothesis
 Research Question

CHAPTER: II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF FORMATION OF NEW STATES……..7-8

CHAPTER: III. PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 3……………………………………………….9-11

CHAPTER: IV. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION TO ARTICLE 3………………………….12-13

CHAPTER: V. LEGISLATION UNDER ARTICLE 3……………………………………….14-15

CHAPTER: VI. CESSION OF INDIAN TERRITORY TO FOREIGN COUNTRY………...16-17

CHAPTER: VII. FEDERALISM AND ARTICLE 3…………………………………………….18

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………...19

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………..20

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

CRI CRIMNAL

CRILJ CRIMNAL LAW JOURNAL

ORS. OTHERS

ED. EDITION

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SLP SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

V. VERSES

COI CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

ANR. ANOTHER

ART. ARTICLE

GOVT. GOVERNMENT

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

NGO NON – GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER

U/A UNDER ARTICLE

UOI UNION OF INDIA

WP WRIT PETITION

CJ. CHIEF JUSTICE

CONS. CONSTITUTION

F.R. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

SEC. SECTION

ST. STATE

3
 TABLE OF CASES

S. NO. NAME OF CASES CITATION

1. P.V. Krishnaiah v. Union of India AIR 2014 SC 13 (16) (DB

Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. (2006) 3 scc 643, 653 : AIR 2006
2.
Union of India SC 1428
(2007) 3 SCC 184, 248, 291
3. Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha :(2007) 2 JT 1.

AIR 1960 SC 51 :1960 (1) SCR

4. Babu Lal Parate v. State of Bombay,. 605

, (2003) 9 SCC 336 : AIR 2003

5. State of Uttaranchal v. Siddarth Srivastava
SC 4062
, AIR 1960 SC 845 (1960) 3 SCR
6. Beruberi Union (1), re
250.
, AIR 1963 SC 1241: (1964) 1
7. State of W.B. v. Union of India SCR 371.

Ram Kishore Sen v. Union of India,

8. AIR 1966 SC 644
(2006) 3 scc 643, 653 : AIR 2006
Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v.
9. SC 1428
Union of India (UOI) and Ors

10. Manohar S. Prabhu v. Union of India,. 1987 (1) Bom CR 130

11. Mangal Singh v. Union of India 967 AIR 944, 1967 SCR (2) 109
1993 AIR 1804, 1993 SCR (1)
12. R.C. Poudyal vs Union Of India
891
AIR 1969 SC 783.
13. Magambhai vs Union of India

4
 CHAPTER - I

INTRODUCTION

India has been characterised as a ‘Union of States’. The territory of India comprises States, Union
Territories and any other territory that may be acquired by the government of India at any time. Today
in India there are 29 states and 7 Union Territories. Article 3 of the constitution of India has been
designed in such a way that enables the Parliament essentially to maintain the concept of federalism.
Therefore, one of the basic structures, namely, federal character of the Constitution is reserved by Art.
3 of the constitution. It does not violate the basic structure of the constitution.1

Article 3 enables Parliament to effect by law reorganisation inter se of the territories of the States
constituting the Indian Union.

This article empowers the parliament to form a new state by separation of a part of territory of an
established state or to unite two or more states or parts of states or by uniting any territory to a part of
any state. This article provides that area of any state can reduced or increased and alter the boundaries
or change the name of a state. Even the though the state boundaries are subject to change, their area
cannot be acquired by a foreign state.

There is also a saving clause in the article to protect the rights of the state. The first condition is that
no bill for the purpose can be introduced in the either house except on recommendation of the President
of India. Second, whether the proposal contains the alternation of the area, boundaries or name of the
state mentioned, it has to referred by President to the Legislatures of concerned states, for expressing
opinions. Such opinion has to be expressed within a period specified by the President. In any case, the
views expressed do not bind the decisions of either the President or the Parliament.

*So the state which is going to be bifurcated need not to give its assent as the article is only talking
about opinion. For example in case of Telangana formation.

The reason for drafting Art. 3 is as follows. When this article was being drafted, the Princely States
had not been fully integrated. There was in the air the possibility of reorganising the states on the
linguistic basis. The Constituent Assembly foresaw that such reorganisation could not be postponed
for long. Accordingly, Art. 3 was incorporated in the Constitution providing for an easy and simple
method for reorganisation of the States at any point of time. 2

1 P.V. Krishnaiah v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 13 (16) (DB)

2 M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONA L LAW, 7th EDITION

5
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Methodology: The project is based on the doctrinal method of research as no field work
done on this topic.
Aims & Objectives: To do a depth analysis of formation of new states and alteration of areas,
boundaries or names of existing states. To know Parliament’s power of formation of states, increase
or diminish the area of any state, alter the boundaries of any state, alter the name of any state. To know
what are the significance of the articles, clauses, and subclauses which are provided by the constitution
of India and are mentioned under Art. 3 of Indian Constitution and to know the validity of Art. 3 of
constitution of India. Further to know the effects of Re-organisation of territory under existing laws.

Sources of Data: The whole project is made with the use of secondary source. The following
secondary sources of data have been used in the project:

1. Books

2. Websites

Mode of Citation: The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the course of
this research paper.

Type of Study: For this topic, the researcher has opted for Descriptive and Explanatory type of study
as in this topic, the researcher is providing the descriptions of the existing facts.

Research Hypothesis: The assumption of the whole project is to seek knowledge about Parliament’s
power to form new State and the limitations upon the power of Parliament regarding

(b) increase the area of any State;

(c) diminish the area of any State;

(d) alter the boundaries of any State;

Research Question:

 Whether The power conferred on Parliament includes the power to form a new State or Union
territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory.
 Whether the power of Parliament to diminish the area of any State include also the power to
cede Indian territory to a foreign State?

6
 CHAPTER: II.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF FORMATION OF NEW STATES

Historically, India has been a plural society as well as multicultural with all the characteristics of
diversity. India had not only cultural diversities and differences but also threat of external aggression.
After British left the India, it was open to threats from China, Russia and Afghanistan on the one hand
and the newly created Pakistan on the other hand. The Cripps and Cabinet Mission Plans advocated
for a relatively weak Centre due to various communal problems but, it was not accepted by the
Constituent Assembly. However, the passing of the India Independence Act and the eventual partition
of India and Pakistan led the constituent assembly to adopt the unitary form of federalism.3

Within this federal framework, inter-state boundaries among Indian states since 1950 have
continuously been reorganized and the process is not yet complete. In the 1950s, the reorganization of
south India took place followed by the reorganization of states of western and northern India in the
1960s. Later, the northeastern states were reorganized in the 1970s. Three new states (Uttarakhand,
Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand) were created in 2000. Among the linguistic states, Andhra Pradesh was
the first state to be formed based on the Telugu speaking population in south India. In subsequent
years, the rest of the Indian states started demanding for separation based on the linguistic identities.
There are still some demands for creating new states and the finalizing of boundaries of the states.

The post-independent Indian federal structure has weathered many linguistic, religious, ethnic,
regional, cultural and politico-ideological challenges. In order to overcome these challenges, the Indian
Constituent Assembly in 1948 appointed the Dar Commission followed by the Jawaharlal Nehru,
Vallavabhai Patel, Pattabhi Sitaramayya Committee (JVPC) to reorganize the states. Both the
committees expressed concern regarding the new forms of inequalities and hierarchies based on the
disproportionate spread of linguistic majority and minority groups in the reorganized provinces. In
1953, the States Reorganization Committee (SRC) was established to look after the issues of
reorganization of states in India.

Later, as per the State Reorganization Committee 1956, the states were reorganized in terms of
linguistic, cultural homogeneity and geographical contiguity. From 1947 to 1950, many princely states
were integrated with neighboring provinces and some integrated with centrally administered units. On
that basis, demands came from Orissa, Andhra, Maharashtra, Gujarat and later Haryana, Himachal
Pradesh, Punjab and Assam for separation. These demands were raised continuously due to their

3 https://www.researchgate.net/

7
economic backwardness and for becoming sub-regions within larger states. For instance, the Bodo
movement arose to make Bodo as the language of education and to enhance economic development.
The movement for separation of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region in Karnataka was due to its cultural
distinctiveness and economic neglect. Similarly, in West Bengal, the Nepalese have been demanding
a separate state of Gorkhaland due to their cultural distinctiveness and economic marginalization.
Thus, as many as 30 such demands are there before the Indian Government at present.

Nevertheless, it is evident from the Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh Human Development Report that
the two study areas have suffered discrimination many grounds. If this situation continues, then the
objective of cooperative federalism and the growth of the nation generally and regionally, in particular,
will not be realized. Hence, the issue of state formation has been a core area within the Indian political
system.

8
 CHAPTER: III. PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 3
The Art. 3 of Indian constitution provides for the Formation of new States and alteration of areas,
boundaries or names of existing States: –

Parliament may by law.

(a) 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;

(b) increase the area of any State;

(c) diminish the area of any State;

(d) alter the boundaries of any State;

Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the
recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area,
boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature
of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference
or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has
expired.'' 4

In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), “State” includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, “State” does
not include a Union territory.

The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union
territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory.5

The power of Parliament is exclusive and plenary 6 .That is why it has been said that “India is an
indestructible Union of destructible units”7 .

4 THE CONSTITUTION (FIFTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1955 [24th December, 1955.

5 THE CONSTITUTION (EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 1966

6 Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union o f India, (2006) 3 scc 643, 653 : AIR 2006 SC 1428
7 Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker, Lok Sabha , (2007) 3 SCC 184, 248, 291 :(2007) 2 JT 1.

9
The exercise of this power by parliament is subject to the following conditions:

(1) A Bill for any such purpose cannot be introduced in the House of Parliament except on the
recommendation of the President.

(2) If the Bill affects the area, name or boundaries of a State, then before recommending its
consideration to Parliament, the President has to refer the same to the State Legislature concerned
for expressing its views on it within such time as he may fix.

The term “State” in Art.3 includes a ‘Union Territory’, in case of a ‘Union Territory’, no reference
need be made to the concerned Legislature to ascertain its views and Parliament can itself take any
action it likes in the matter.

The purpose of the provision is to give an opportunity to the State Legislature concerned to express
its views on the proposals contained in the Bill. Parliament is in no way bound by these views. All
that is contemplated is that Parliament should have before it the views of the State Legislature affected
by the proposals contained in the Bill, but the Parliament is free to deal with the matter in any manner
it thinks fit and may accept or reject what the State Legislature says. Parliament is not bound to accept
or act upon the views of the State Legislature.

If the State Legislature fails to express its views within the stipulated time, Parliament is free to
proceed with the matter as it likes. If once a Bill has been referred to the State Legislature, it can latter
be amended by Parliament and no fresh reference to the State Legislature is required to ascertain its
views on the proposed amendments.8

When Parliament acts, under the above mentioned constitutional provisions, to admit or to create a
new States, or to reorganise the existing States, it can also effect such amendment in the First and the
Forth Schedules to the Constitution as may be necessary to effectuate the new proposals.

Parliament may also make all consequential, supplemental and incidental provisions as may be
necessary to effectuate the new proposals, such as representation of new units in Parliament, setting
up of the legislative, executive and judicial organs of the State essential to the effective state
administration under the Constitution, expenditure and distribution of revenue, apportionment of
assets and liabilities, provisions as to service and other related matters. 9 Any such law enacted under
Article 2, 3 and 4 is not regarded as an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368.

8 Babu Lal Parate v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 51 :1960 (1) SCR 605
9 State of Uttaranchal v. Siddarth Srivastava, (2003) 9 SCC 336 : AIR 2003 SC 4062.

10
This means that a law made by Parliament to reorganise the States would not be invalid even if it is
inconsistent with any constitutional provisions. Parliament thus has plenary and comprehensive
powers to pass legislation to reorganise the States and Union Territories and to deal with all problems
– constitutional, legal, administrative- arising as a result thereof.

The Constitution contemplates changes in the territorial limits of the constituent States. Thus the State
have no guarantee of their territorial integrity. 10

Clause (c) of Art.3 deal with the diminution of the area of any State which may occur due to taking
away part of the area of a State and its addition to another State. Parliament can even take away the
entire area of a state to form a new state or to increase the area of another State. There is no
constitutional guarantee of continuing existence of a State that existed at the commencement of the
Constitution or came into existence later. 11 But the power to diminish the area of a State does not
entitle Parliament to cede Union Territory to a foreign State the diminution of the area of any State to
which Art.3(c) refers, postulates that the area diminished from the State in question should and must
continue to be a part of the territory of India. 12 This limitation on cession applies as much to Union
territory as to territories of States.13

10 Beruberi Union (1), re, AIR 1960 SC 845 (1960) 3 SCR 250.
11 State of W.B. v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1241: (1964) 1 SCR 371.
12 Berubari Union (1),re, AIR 1960 SC 845 : (1960) 3 SCR 250.
13 Ram Kishore Sen v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 644

11
 CHAPTER: IV. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION TO ARTICLE 3

Judiciary has several times interpret to the Art.3 of the constitution for the formation of new States,
substituting certain provision in the Art.3 and in regards of cession of territory.

It was held in the “Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors”14
after rejecting a challenge to the constitutional validity of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 that the
power of parliament to make law under Article 3 and 4 is plenary and traverses over all legislative
subject as are necessary for effectuating a proper reorganisation of States. Constitutional validity of a
law made under Article 3 and 4 cannot be questioned on the ground of lake of legislative competence
with reference to the Lists of Seventh Schedule and the power of State to enact laws in List 2 of the
Seventh Schedule is subject to parliamentary legislation under Article 3 and 4.

Nevertheless, the power does not authorise Parliament to override the constitutional scheme. “No
State can, therefore, be formed, admitted or set up by law under Art. 4 by the Parliament which has
not effective legislative, executive, and judicial organs.

Article 170 fixes the minimum strength of State Legislature Assembly at 60. When the Haryana State
was established in 1966, the strength of interim legislature was fixed at 54. The provision was
challenged as being inconsistent with Art. 170, but the Supreme Court upheld it under Art.4. Prima
facie, the provision undoubtedly was an amendment of the Constitution but under Art. 4(2) it was not
to be treated as such.15

Further it was held by the Supreme Court in Mangal Singh v. Union of India 16 after elucidating the
scope of the power conferred upon Parliament by Art. 2, 3 and 4, that the law referred to in Art. 2 and
3 may alter or amend to the First Schedule to the Constitution which sets out the names of the States
and description of territories thereof, and the Forth Schedule allotting seats to the States in the Rajya
Sabha.

In R.C. Poudyal vs Union Of India 17 consequent on the conferment of full-fledged statehood on

Sikkim within the Indian Union, and the enactment of Art.371F for the purpose, two crucial question
were raised for the consideration of Supreme Court:

14 (2006) 3 scc 643, 653 : AIR 2006 SC 1428

15 Manohar S. Prabhu v. Union of India, 1987 (1) Bom CR 130.
16 967 AIR 944, 1967 SCR (2) 109
17 1993 AIR 1804, 1993 SCR (1) 891

12
 (1) Can a seat be reserved in the State Legislature for a representative of a group of religious
institutions to be elected by them; and
(2) Can seat be reserved in favour of a particular tribe far in excess of its populations in the State?

Provision to this effect made in Art.371F and various enactments were challenged. Article 371F were
challenged on the ground that it was inconsistent with the basic features of the Constitution, viz.,
equality and secularism. The Court by majority upheld these provisions in the light of historical,
cultural and political background of Sikkim. The majority ruled that “the provisions in the particular
situations and the permissible latitudes, cannot be said to be unconstitutional” and that “the impunged
provisions have been found in the wisdom of Parliament necessary in the admission of a strategic
border-state into the Union. The departures are not such as to negate fundamental principle of
democracy.” 18

18 AIR 1993 SC at 1852

13
 CHAPTER: V. LEGISLATION UNDER ARTICLE 3

Since the inauguration of the Constitution, Parliament has passed several Acts to recognise the States
and settle boundary disputes between one State and another. In 1956, an extensive reorganisation of
the States was undertaken on the linguistic basis, and Parliament passed the States Reorganisation Act,
1956, for this purpose.19

In all, up-to-date Parliament has passed 23 Acts under Art. 3 and 4 since 1950 to effect changes in the
areas, boundaries and name of the States.20

Parliament, so far, has passed the following enactments relatable to Article 3 of the Constitution21 :

(1) Assam (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1951, which altered the boundaries of the State of Assam
consequent on cession of a strip of territory comprised in that State of the Government of Bhutan.
(2) Andhra State Act, 1953, which formed the new state of Andhra Pradesh by separating some
territory from the State of Madras.
(3) Himachal Pradesh and Bilaspur (New State) Act, 1954, which merged the two former Part C
States to form one State of Himachal Pradesh.
(4) Bihar and West Bengal (Transfer of Territories) Act, 1956 transferred certain territories from
Bihar to West Bengal.
(5) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 reorganised the boundaries of different States. It established the
new State of Kerala and merged the former States of Madhya Bharat, Pepsu, Saurashtra,
Travancore-Cochin, Ajmer, Bhopal, Coorg, Kutch and Vindhya Pradesh in other adjoining States.
(6) Andhra Pradesh and Madras (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1959 provided for the alteration of
boundaries of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Madras.
(7) Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh (Transfer of Territories) Act, 1959 transferred certain territories
from the State of Rajasthan to that of Madhya Pradesh.
(8) Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 divided the State of Bombay to established the two States of
Gujarat and Magharashtra.
(9) Acquired Territories (Merger) Act, 1960 merged certain territories into the State of Assam,
Punjab and West Bengal, certain territories acquired from Pakistan under agreements entered into
between the Government of India and Pakistan.

19 REPORT OF THE STATES REORGANISATION COMMISSION, (1955)

20 REPORT OF THE SARKARIA COMMITTEE
21 V.N. Shukla’s, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 13th Edition

14
(10) State of Nagaland Act,1962.
(11) Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.
(12) State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970.
(13) North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971.
(14) Haryana and U.P. ( Alteration of Boundaries ) Act, 1979.
(15) State of Mizoram Act, 1986.
(16) State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986.
(17) Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987.
(18) Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000.
(19) Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000.
(20) Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000.
(21) Andhra Prdesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.

15
 CHAPTER: VI. CESSION OF INDIAN TERRITORY TO FOREIGN
COUNTRY

Under Article 3(c) Parliament may, by law, increase or diminish the area of any State. The diminution
of the area of any State may occur where a part of the State is taken out and added to another State.
Parliament has been empowered to cut away the entire area of a State to form a new State or to
increase the area of any State. Does the power of Parliament to diminish the area of any State include
also the power to cede Indian territory to a Foreign State?

The question came up for consideration before the Supreme court of India in a reference made by the
president of India under Article 143. The fact of the case 22 are as follow : The Indo-Pakistan
Agreement entered into in 1958 for resolving certain border disputes, provided inter alia

(1) For the transfer of one-half of the area of Berubari Union by India to Pakistan and
(2) For the exchange of old Cooch-Bihar enclaves

Berubari Union comprised an area of 9 square miles in the State of west Bengal with a population of
about 12 thousand. When the central government sought to implement the agreement a powerful
political agitation was started against the proposed transfer of territory to Pakistan. Thereupon the
President referred the matter to the Supreme Court for its Advisory opinion under Art 143. The
question referred to were:

(1) Is any legislative action necessary for the implementation of agreement relating to Berubari
Union , and
(2) If so,is law of Parliament under Article 3 sufficient or is an amendment of the Constitution in
accordance with Article 368 necessary or both.

The Supreme Court held that Art. 3, broadly stated, “deals with the internal adjustment inter se of the
territories of the constituent States of the Indian Union”. It does not contemplate cession of national
territory in favour of a foreign country. Thus, Indian territory can be ceded to foreign country only
by enacting a formal amendment of the Constitution under Article 368to modified the first schedule
to the Constitution.23

22 Berubari Union (1) AIR 1960 SC 845, 1960 3 SCR 250

23 M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONA L LAW, 7th EDITION

16
 Explaining the above ruling later, Supreme Court stated in Magambhai vs Union of India 24
that a constitutional amendment is necessary in a case where de jure and de facto Indian territory is
ceded to foreign country. But settlement of boundary dispute between India and another country stand
on a different footing. The settlement of a boundary dispute cannot held to be cession of territory.
This matter rests with the Executive.

24 AIR 1969 SC 783.

17
 CHAPTER: VII. FEDERALISM AND ARTICLE 3

Preamble of Indian constitution talks about federal structure of State. Federalism is one of the basic
feature of Constitution and it is inherent under Article 3 of Indian Constitution.

In the U.S.A., the consent of the concerned State Legislature is essential before a State can be
reorganised. 25 In Australia in addition to the consent of the State legislature, the consent of the
electors in affected State is also stipulated. 26 On the other hand, in India, what is needed is mere
reference of the proposals to the concerned State Legislature for expression of its views and, subject
to this stipulation, the matter of the State reorganisation rests solely with the Parliament. But, in
practice, it is one thing to have a formal or legal power and quite another thing to exercise it. Keeping
the political realities in views, Parliament is not free to act at its sweet will without some sort of public
acceptance of, or acquiescence into, the proposed measure of reorganisation.

Article 1 (3) (c) provides that ''such other territories as may be acquired''. By mixture of the provisions,
the territories comprising in Goa, Daman and Diu under the Portuguese rule were annexed by the
Government of India bu conquest on 20th December,1961 were made a part of India. By the
constitution (Twelfth amendment) Act, 1962, Goa, Diu and Daman were added as entry 5 in part II of
the first schedule to the constitution and as d. (d) in Article 240 of the constitution with retrospective
effect from the date of their annexation. Ours is a constitution where there is a combination of federal
with unitary features. While in a unitary state, there is only one government, federal state involves
multi-governments, namely national or federal government and the governments of component states.
A federal state, in short is a fusion of several states into a single state is regard to matters affecting
common interest leaving each component state to join autonomy in regard to other matters. 27

25 Article 4, s.3(1) of the U.S. Constitution

26 Section 123 and 124 of the Australian Constitution Act, 1900
27 http://legalserviceindia.com/copyright/register.htm

18
 CONCLUSION

Article 3 provision says that the views of the state assembly shall be taken by the president before
recommending for changing the boundary of a state. The original provision of Article 3 was amended
by Constitution (fifth amendment) Act, 1955 on 24 December 1955. In case of union territories the
provision for finding the views of the assembly is not applicable. The proviso of Article 3 would
become redundant if the views expressed by the state assembly is not of any concern for the
president/central government in reorganisation of a state. This means that though the central
government must ask for state opinion regarding creating new state, changing name or altering
boundary, it is not bound by the opinion thus given and is free to act as it deems fit. But the Article 3
does not tell anything about to diminish the area of any State to cede Indian territory to a Foreign State.
Art. 3, broadly stated, “deals with the internal adjustment inter se of the territories of the constituent
States of the Indian Union”. It does not contemplate cession of national territory in favour of a foreign
country. Thus, Indian territory can be ceded to foreign country only by enacting a formal amendment
of the Constitution under Article 368to modified the first schedule to the Constitution.

19
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEBSITES:-

 http://legalserviceindia.com/copyright/register.htm

 https://www.researchgate.net/

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

BOOKS/JOURNALS:-
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA – P.M BAKSHEE
 INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- M.P. JAIN
 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA – V.N. Shukla’s
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA – Dr. J.N. PANDEY

20