This article has been written by Ms. Nidhisha Alajangi, a 2nd year BBA LL.B Student from SVKM Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Bengaluru.

INTRODUCTION

The phrase “Union of States” is often used while referring to India. According to the first sentence of Article 1 of the Constitution of India, the nation of India is to be organised as a federation of separate states. The terminology that was adopted by the Drafting Committee of the Constituent Assembly to describe India as a “Union of States” was taken from the Preamble to the British North America Act, which was passed in 1867. According to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, the choice of the word Union rather than Federation was made for two reasons: first, to demonstrate that the Indian federation was not formed as a result of an agreement between the units that make it up; second, to demonstrate that the units that make up the Union do not have the right to dissolve it. Both of these points were explained by Ambedkar.

MAIN CONTENT

The federal structure of India was both established and maintained with the use of similar methods. While drafting India’s constitution, the nation’s founding fathers did not take it as a given that the country’s states, districts, and mandals would stay unchanged for all of time. They were astute enough to predict the unavoidable emergence of further states, and as a result, the Indian Union included provisions for this possibility. The Supreme Court of India determined in one instance that India chose what is known as a “loose federal structure,” which may be thought of as an unbreakable Union of breakable Parts. This decision was made in light of the fact that India is a federal republic.

As a result, the states play an essential role in India’s Union. In addition to being emblems of their respective identities, they play a significant part in upholding India’s federal structure, which is mandated by the constitution of the nation.This article will explain the constitutional provisions surrounding the establishment of new states in India, as well as the constitutional procedure for forming new states, and will also provide particular instances of new states that were founded within the jurisdiction of the Indian Constitution.

The Constitution Being Amended to Include Additional Indian States.As was said before, the procedure by which new states are formed in India is governed by Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Indian Constitution.

According to Article 2 of the Constitution of India, the only body having the authority to admit or create new states within the Indian Union is the Indian Parliament. This authority is subject to any restrictions that the Parliament decides to impose on the new states. The only entity in India that has the power to act about this subject is the Indian Parliament; the various state legislatures have no influence in the issue.

According to Article 2, Parliament has the authority to form new member states or accept existing ones into the Union on any terms and circumstances it deems appropriate.

Article 3 of the Indian Constitution provides additional background and definition, including the authority of the Indian Parliament to create new states and alter the territory, boundaries, and/or names of existing states through legislation. Also included in this provision is the authority of the Indian Parliament to change the names of existing states. According to the provisions of this article, the Parliament has the authority to create a new state by separating a section of territory from an existing state, combining two or more states into a single state, or joining a portion of one state with another state. Also, it has the potential to change the name of a state, its borders, and/or its total land area. A Union Territory is considered a State for the purposes of Article 3, clauses (a) through (c), respectively (e).

According to the provisions of Article 3 of the Indian Constitution, the Parliament of India has the authority to enact legislation that may result in the formation of a new state, the consolidation of two or more states, or the addition of any area to a section of an already existing state.Expanding the frontiers of any state is something that has to be done;Reduce the size of any one state; the borders of each state may be adjusted, and the names of the states can also be changed.In the very beginning of Article 3, there is a stipulation. Any measure that is based on the provisions of Article 3 is unable to be tabled in either House of the Indian Parliament without the assent of the President of India for the same reason.

If such legislation has the potential to change the area, boundary, or name of any existing state, it cannot be introduced into either House of Parliament until the President has first referred it to the legislature of the state that would be impacted by the legislation and obtained the opinions of that legislature regarding the state’s area, boundary, or name. Until then, the legislation cannot be introduced.

It should be emphasised that the President of India must be informed of any such views expressed by the state legislatures within the time term indicated by the President of India in such reference, or within the time period authorised by the President. This information must be communicated to the President of India as soon as possible. If the federal government endorses the suggestion made by the state, the President of the United States may suggest that a bill be submitted in one of the Houses of Parliament.

Before the Center begins writing the Bill, it is possible that it may form a Commission to address problems such as the location of initial administrative centres like capitals and high courts, as well as waterway sharing, guarantees, and the borders between states. It is necessary for the Union Council of Ministers to provide its approval before the President may put up a bill for legislative consideration.

Notwithstanding this, the Parliament is not obligated in any way to accept or take action based on the viewpoints expressed by the state legislatures, even if these views are communicated to it in a timely manner. This indicates that the President has the authority to go on with the establishment of a new state notwithstanding the fact that there may be resistance to the referred Bill, a failure to respond to the reference within the allotted amount of time, or the passage of such a Bill. It is the responsibility of the President to designate a timeframe by which the State Legislature is required to deliver a response; however, the President has the authority to extend the deadline if he so chooses.

But, the second requirement of the clause will be met if the original deadline, the extended deadline, or both deadlines pass without receiving any input from the state legislature. The stated objective seems to be providing the State Legislature with the chance to weigh in on the topic within the stipulated time limit; nevertheless, the presentation of the bill will still be considered genuine if the State Legislature does not take advantage of this option.

R.C.Poudyal & Ors. v. Union of India made the observation that Article cannot be read as providing Parliament unbridled authority that is beyond the reach of the courts. Its authority is constrained by the fundamental values of Indian constitutionalism, and as a result, any constraints imposed by Parliament need to be compatible with the Constitution’s guiding principles and must not undermine those ideals in any way. The constitutional power of the Legislature at the time that a law is adopted is used to assess whether or not that legislation is legal. If the jurisdiction of the Legislature is exceeded, then the statute in question is invalid and unenforceable.

In the Matter of Haji Abdul Gani Khan v. Union of India (Supreme Court of India) The highest court of the Indian Constitution ruled that Parliament has the jurisdiction to change the names of existing states, alter the borders of existing states, and form new states by legislation. It also has the authority to change the names of existing states (which includes Union Territory). The Delimitation Commission for Jammu and Kashmir, which was established in accordance with the Delimitation Act of 2002, as well as the Commission’s delimitation process, are both challenged in the petition for a writ of certiorari that was filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Both of these issues are considered to be in violation of the Indian Constitution. In conclusion, the legislation gives Parliament the authority to change the territory, borders, and names of existing states (Article 3). As was discussed in explanation I, the term “Union Territory” is considered to be part of the “State” category for the purposes of Article 3, clauses (a) to (d) (e). As a result, it is crystal clear that the Parliament possesses the authority to pass a law to construct a new Union Territory as part of its authority under Clause (a) of Article 3 to pass legislation to create a new State or to change the borders of an existing State. This authority allows the Parliament to pass legislation to create a new State or to change the borders of an existing State. The second interpretation highlights the fact that the power to create a Union Territory by merging parts of existing states or UTs is included in Parliament’s power to propose laws to create a new state under clause. This interpretation emphasises that the power to create a Union Territory by merging parts of existing states or UTs is included in clause (a).

 REFERENCES

http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/E6D33255-8F9C-4F9E-B3F9-7359D9D25FE9.pdf

http://www.isec.ac.in/WP%20378%20-%20Susant%20Kumar%20Naik%20-%20Final.pdf

Aishwarya Says:

Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening