send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Moving the Draft Constitution for the consideration of the Constituent Assembly in 1948, Dr. Ambedkar explained the significance of the use of the expression Union instead of the expression Federation. Two reasons are given
1. Though the country and the people may be divided into different States for convenience of administration, the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source.
2. The expression- India is a Union of States was chosen as India was already a Union at the time of the Constituent Assembly debates.
There are two expressions used in the context of governance in India-˜Union of India and Territory of India’. The former includes States that share federal powers with the Union Government, the latter includes not only States but all other units like UTs and soon. In other words, territory of India encompasses a larger area than Union of India. That is, Territory of India encompasses the entire territory over which Indian sovereignty is exercised while Union of India covers only the federal system. Government of India can acquire any territory by purchase, treaty, cession, conquest or any other method, administer it on the basis of Parliamentary Act. The States and the territories, thereof are specified in the First Schedule. The territory of India comprises of the territories of the States; the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and such other territories as may be acquired.
Name and territory of the Union
(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
(2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.
(3) The territory of India shall comprise-
(a) the territories of the States;
(b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and
(c) such other territories as may be acquired.
Admission or establishment of new States. Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.
Sikkim to be associated with the Union. [Rep. by the Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1975, s.5 (w.e.f.26-4-1975).
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;
(e) Alter the name 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.
The amendment of the Article 2 and Article 3 are not to be deemed to be an amendment under Article 368.
Increasing demand for separate states is a proxy for the administrative efficiency and will make the Indian Policy more federal
The demand for statehood has the following explanatory factors:
States reorganization has been taking place since mid-fifties-first in south and later in northwest and northeast and now in the northern, central and eastern India so that big states are made more governable through bifurcation on linguistic, cultural, ecological, economic or any other criterion or a combination of them. The case for small states rests on.
Examples of Haryana, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh are shown as successful small states. Northeast is cited to show that without the reorganization, there would have been greater levels of insurgency. While there is no opposition to carving more states out of the big states like Bihar, MP and UP as social and economic indicators show that for reasons of governability, there should be bifurcation, the costs are cited as the following
According to some development experts, the need for division of big states is undeniable but the debate regarding the desirability of small states is basically one of how to enable balanced development and facilitate better administration. According to them, the answer lies in Local self government institutions; institutionalization of regional planning through autonomous councils etc; sustaining the existing funding mechanisms through Planning Commission (Gadgil formula for plan assistances) and Finance Commission -mediated transfers on the basis of poverty; special category states etc.
Berubari Union No. 12 fell within West Bengal and was treated as such by the Constitution which came into force on January 26, 1950, and has since been governed on that basis. Certain disputes arose between India and Pakistan subsequent to the Radcliffe Award but Berubari was not in issue before the Badge Commission set up by agreement between the parties to decide those disputes. That commission made its award on January 26, 195o. Pakistan raised the question of Berubari for the first time in 1952 alleging that under the Radcliffe Award it should form part of East Bengal and was wrongly included in West Bengal. On August 28, 1949, the Ruler of the State of Cooch-Behar
The court ruled in Berubari case that cession of Indian territory to another country had to be ratified by parliament through amendment of the constitution. However, the Indian government has stated that “No territory belonging to India was ceded nor sovereignty relinquished since the area was in dispute and had never been demarcated” and that the dispute on the status of the island was settled in 1974 by an agreement, and both countries took into account historical evidence and legal aspects
In June 2011, the new Tamil Nadu government led by Jayalalithaa filed a petition in Supreme Court seeking the declaration of the 1974 and 1976 agreements between India and Sri Lanka on ceding of Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka as unconstitutional.
Laws made under articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth Schedules and supplemental incidental and consequential matters.
(1) Any law referred to in article 2 or article 3 shall contain such provisions for the amendment of the First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to representation in Parliament and in the Legislature or Legislatures of the State or States affected by such law) as Parliament may deem necessary.
(2) No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of article 368.
Bill for the formation of new state under Art 3 can be introduced in either house of parliament only with the prior recommendation of the president and before recommending the bill, President has to refer the bill to the concerned state legislatures for their views within such period as may be specifies in the reference or within such period as the President may allow. The opinion of the state legislature is not binding on the President and may either accept or reject it even if the views are received in time. If the bill is passed by both the houses of Parliament by simple majority and receives the accent of the President then new state comes into existence.
Thus reorganization of the states involves a series of administrative steps that begin after enactment of the legislation and end with notification. The Union Home Ministry coordinates these steps in consultation with the parent states as well as Union ministries for Finance, Law and Personnel.
At the time of independence, the original constitution provided for four types of states.
Part A: -States comprising Assam, Bihar, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Orissa, Panjas, The United Provinces, West Bengal.
Part B:- States comprising Hyderabad, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Bharat, Mysore, Patiala and Eastern Punjab.
Part C:- States comprising Ajmer, Bhopal, Bilaspur, Cooch-Bihar, Coorg.
Part D: -Territories comprising The Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
After independence, the demand for reorganization of States on linguistic basis was raised from different regions. The Constituent Assembly appointed S.K. Dhar Commission in Nov. 1947 to study the issue of reorganization of States on linguistic basis. The Commission in its report, submitted in 1948, recommended against the reorganization of states purely on linguistic basis. Instead, the Commission suggests the following criteria along with language for the reorganization of States:
The Congress, in its Jaipur session in 1948, appointed a three member committee to consider the recommendations of Dhar Commission. The Committee is properly known as JVP Committee after the names of its three members – Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabh Bhai Patel and PattabhiSitarammaiah. The Committee rejected language as the basis for reorganization of States. It suggested that the security, unity and economic prosperity of the nation as criteria of reorganization. The Congress Working Committee accepted its recommendation in 1949, but the demands for linguistic reorganization of States persisted in Southern States particularly in Telgu speaking areas. As the agitation took a violent turn in Telgu speaking areas, the Congress conceded the reorganization of Telgu speaking areas, in the State of Andhra Pradesh in 1953.
To make an exhaustive study of the problem, the Government of India set up State Reorganisation Commission in 1953 which was headed by Fazal Ali. The other members of the Commission were, Hriday Nath Kunzru and K.Panikkar. The Commission, in its report submitted in 1955, accepted the language as the basis of reorganization of States. It suggested the reorganization of 27 states of various categories into 16 States and three UnionTerritories. The State Reorganisation Act, 1956 was passed by Parliament to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission.
14 States and 6 centrally AdministeredTerritories were created under the states Reorganization Act, 1956. The states included Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Bombay, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerela, Madhya Pradesh, Mysore, Tamil Nadu, Orissa-Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.At present, the Indian Union consists of 28 states.
Centrally AdministeredTerritories were Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Minicoy and Amindivi islands. Presently there are 7 UTs including Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Din, Delhi-Lakshadweep and Pondicherry (Now Pudducherry).
Andhra Pradesh
Created by State of Andhra Pradesh Act, 1953 by carving out some areas from the State of Madras.
Gujarat and Maharashtra
The State of Bombay was divided into two States i.e. Maharashtra and Gujarat by Bombay (Reorganization) Act, 1960.
Kerala
Created by State Reorganization Act, 1956. It comprised Travancor and Cochin areas.
Karnataka
Created from princely State of Mysore by State Reorganization Act, 1956. It has been renamed Karnataka in 1973.
Nagaland
It was carved out from the State of Assam by State of Nagaland Act, 1962.
Haryana
It was carved out from the State of Punjab by Punjab (Reorganization) Act, 1966.
Himachal Pradesh
The Union Territories of Himachal Pradesh was elevated to the status of State by State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970.
Meghalaya
State within the State of Assam by 23rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1969. Later, in 1971, it received the status of a full fledged State by North Eastern Areas (Reorganization) Act, 1971.
Manipur and Tripura
Both these States were elevated from the status of Union Territories by North – Eastern Areas (Reorganization) Act, 1971.
Sikkim
Sikkim was given first as status of Associate State Amendment Act, 1974. It got the status of full State in 1975 by 36th Amendment Act, 1975.
Mizoram
It was elevated to the status of a full state by state of Mizoram Act, 1986.
Arunachal Pradesh
It received the status of a full state by State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986.
Goa
Goa was separated from the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and was made a full fledged State by Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganization Act, 1987. But Daman and Diu remained as UnionTerritory.
Chhattisgarh
This is formed by the Constitutional Amendment Act 2000 by dividing Madhya Pradesh.
Uttarakhand
This is formed by the constitutional Amendment Act 2000 by dividing Uttar Pradesh.
Jharkhand
This is formed by the Constitutional Amendment Act 2000 by dividing Bihar.
Telangana
State of Telangana formed by “Andhra Pradesh State reorganization Act 2014” as the 29th state of Indian Union
Thus the states reorganized after Reorganization of 1956 were Maharashtra, Gujarat (1960); Nagaland (1963); Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh (1966); Meghalaya (1969); Tripura and Manipur (1970); Sikkim (1975); Mizoram (1986); Arunachal Pradesh (1987); Goa (1987); Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand (2000); and Telangana (2014).
The Rajya Sabha cleared the Chhattisgarh Statehood Bill on August 9, 2000. The Bill was unanimously passed by the Lok Sabha on July 31, 2000. The President’s signature is the only legal formality left before the Union Government is free to decide the mechanics of the division. A date will have to be chosen for the formal “birth” and everything-from personnel to institutions to finances-has to be divided. The Bill gives the Union the power to arbitrate in case of dispute.
It is believed that the creation of 26th State of Union of India, namely, Chhattisgarh, carved out of the States of Madhya Pradesh, would facilitate speedy and more balanced development of the region and meet the democratic aspirations of the people there. The proposed tribal-dominated State would consist of 16 districts and have an estimated population of 1.76 crores, of which 78 lakh people would belong to the Scheduled Tribes.
Council of States: Five of the 16 sitting members of the Council of States from the existing State of Madhya Pradesh will represent the new State of Chhattisgarh and the term of office of such sitting members shall remain unaltered.
House of the People: Eleven of the present 40 sitting members in the House of the People from the existing State of Madhya Pradesh will represent the new State of Chhatisgarh and the term of office of such sitting members shall remain unaltered.
Legislative Assembly: The number of seats as on the appointed day in the Legislative Assemblies of the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh shall be 230 and 90 respectively.
High Court: There shall be a separate High Court for the State of Chhatisgarh referred to as the High Court of Chhatisgarh and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh shall become the High Court for the State of Madhya Pradesh.
The Parliament approved the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Bill, 2000 with the Rajya Sabha passing it by voice-vote on August 10, 2000 after the Union Home Ministerassured the House that the existing land ceiling laws would not be altered.The passage of the Bill, cleared by the Lok Sabha on August 1, 2000 will pave the way for the formation of a separate Uttarakhand State, the 27th State of Union of India.
The Parliament on August 11, 2000 approved the Bihar Reorganization Bill 2000 with the Rajya Sabha passing it by a voice-vote thus paving the way for the creation of a new State of Jharkhand, comprising 18 districts of the existing State of Bihar.
The act proclaims the bifurcation of the Andhra Pradesh state into two states, Telangana and residuary Andhra Pradesh. New state was formed in 2014 as 29th state.
Demand for the smaller state has been an integral part of Indian politics since independence. Even after the state reorganization all the demands could not be reconciled particularly after the formation of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Uttrakhand, new demands have been raised. People of vidharabha region of Maharashtra, Darjeeling hill area of West Bengal, eastern Uttar Pradesh (Purvachanl) etc are demanding separate state for themselves. Occasional protests and agitations keep on highlighting these issues.Agitations for the Demand for a separate State of Gorkhaland and status of “Statehood for Delhi” are some recent issues in the news.
India is a unique nation for having a huge diversity in terms of culture, linguistic and ethnic variations such that it is nation among many nations within it. It is but natural that the regions having distinct culture, ethnicity, would assert at times for a separate state for preserving their own identity. When the Constitution of India was on the anvil, the demand for the reorganization of the states especially on linguistic basis was already in the air. The constitution makers thought it advisable to devise a machinery to complete the task of reorganization smoothly and without much difficulty as and when it was taken in hand in future.
Carried away by this logic, the Constitution makers devised a very flexible mechanism for the reorganization of states. Hence, under article 3, a plenary and exclusive power for the reorganization of an existing state has been given to the Parliament. This provision thus enables the Parliament to effect by law reorganization inter se of the territories of the states constituting the Indian union.
Going by the above provision, it appears that Indian federation is a unique federation in its own right that in spite of federalism, the makers have ensured the paramountcy of national interest.
This is in contrast to classical federal states like the USA or Australia where the consent of the concerned state legislature is necessary before a state can be reorganized. In Australia in addition to the consent of the concerned state legislature, the consent of the electors in the affected state has also been stipulated by the Constitution.
In India on the other hand, what is needed from the state in this matter, is a mere reference of the proposals to the concerned state legislature for expression of its views and subject to this stipulation, the matter of state reorganization rests solely with the Parliament.
Does it mean that the Government of the day having its majority in the Parliament can use this flexible provision at its political expediency?
Certainly not, because in actual practice, it is one thing to have a formal or legal power and indeed quite another thing to exercise it. Keeping the political realties in view, the Parliament is not free to act at its sweet will without some sort of public acceptance of the proposed measure of reorganization.
Now the question is: what if there is not only a public acceptance but also a public clamour for such a move?
In principle there seems to be nothing wrong in having a few more states than the present number of 29 and as stated above, the Union Government has plenary power in this regard. It is also argued that if the USA with a population of around 30 crores can have 50 states, why not in India having a population of around 1.25 billion encompassing almost four Americas within it.
Moreover, it is also a well known fact that a big state of the size and population of say UP, is not only administratively unwieldy and cumbersome but is also unmanageable, seriously affecting the reach of civic services to the people and hence good governance.
Comparatively speaking then, a smaller state has a sheer advantage of being administered more efficiently.
Having said that, India can very well afford to have a few more states considering its humongous size and population, what however, is more necessary is that the new states ought not to be carved out on an adhoc basis in a piecemeal manner keeping only political expediency in view. Moreover, the economic viability of the region being carved out as a state must also be kept in view (as in the case of Gorkhaland) and above all, as reiterated by the apex Court, the new state should have all the infrastructure of democratic institutions.
The most democratic way to deal with any such demand is the appointment of an independent commission to study thoroughly the question of formation of a new state deeply yet pervasively from all its aspects.
The commission must keep in view among several factors, but more importantly, administrative convenience, geographic and cultural plus linguistic homogeneity yet above all, economic viability.
In the famous re-berubari union case of 1960 which involved the decision of the central government to cede a part of the Indian territory known as Berubari union located in West Bengal to Pakistan in pursuance of what was known as Nehru-Noon Agreement.
This led to political agitation and thus called for the presidential reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143.
The Court held that the power of the parliament to diminish the area of a state under Article 3 does not cover cession of Indian territory to a foreign state.
However, if it involved the cession of Indian territory at any moment to a foreign state then the same could be possible only through a constitutional Amendment under Article 368.
The latest instance of this was seen when the union of India transferred certain territories in West Bengal to Bangladesh in pursuance of LBA (India exchanged around 111 enclaves to Bangladesh), 100th constitutional amendment was passed in 2015.
But as ruled by the S.C in 1969 that the settlement of a boundary dispute would not require a constitutional amendment…
Based on this ruling and law laid down by the court, the parliament passed the 100th Constitutional amendment to give to an agreement with Bangladesh regarding the transfer of certain territories from India.
Under Article 239-A, the parliament is empowered to create by law a legislature for the UT of Puducherry and a council of ministers with such powers and functions as may be specified in the law. Such a law is not to be treated as an amendment of the constitution under 368.
The L.G of Puducherry can promulgate an ordinance when the legislature is not functioning. However, he can not promulgate an ordinance without seeking instructions from the President and that too when the legislature is suspended or dissolved.
The parliament has enacted the UT Act of 1963. The purpose of the Act is to create a legislative Assembly and a council of ministers for certain union territories…
Since the parliament is authorized to create by law a democratic structure for a Union Territory and hence in exercise of this power, the Parliament has provided for an elected legislature for Delhi.
The constitution 69th Amendment 1991, paved the way for giving Delhi a special status and added article 239AA for this purpose.
According to this Amendment, Union Territory of Delhi shall be called the National Capital Territory and it shall have a Legislative Assembly to which members shall be chosen by direct election from the territorial Constituencies- The Assembly shall make laws on matters enumerated in States List (Except on matters relating to Public Order, Police and Land). The amendment further provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers consisting of not more than 10 per cent of the total number of members in the Legislative Assembly, with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Lieutenant Governor in the exercise of his functions in relation to matters with respect to which the Legislative assembly has power to make laws, except in so far as, he is by or under any law is required to act in his discretion.
In the case of difference of opinion between the Lieutenant Governor and his Ministers on any matter, the Lieutenant Governor shall refer it to the President for his decision and act accordingly. However, pending such decision it shall be competent for the Lieutenant Governor in any case where the matter in his opinion, is so urgent that is necessary for him to take immediate action, to take such action or to give such direction in the matter as he deems necessary.
The Amendment and the NCT Act further provides that the chief Minister shall be appointed by the President and other Ministers shall be appointed by him on the advice of the CM. All Ministers shall hold their office at the pleasure of the President.
Finally, Article 239AB of the constitution provides that if the President is satisfied either on the report of the LG or otherwise that there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the NCT, then the President can order the suspension of any provision of Article 239AA or of any law for such period as he may deem fit for the effective administration of the NCT of Delhi…
Union of States: A union or centre of authority that is constituted by the combination of peripheral subunits called as States.
Territory of India: Territory throughout which jurisdiction of India extends. As per the Constitution, it constitutes the States, Union territories or any other territory that may be acquired by the Government of India at any future date and extends her jurisdiction on it.
International Law: This is a body of customary and conventional rules of law as well as general principles of law. This body also relates to function of International institutions or organizations, their relations with each other and their relations with States and individuals. There are two kinds of International Law i.e. public international law and private international law.
Part-A States: Former British India provinces that used to exist in the British empire and classified as such at the commencement of the Constitution, Jan 26, 1950.
Part-B States: Former Princely States as a part of the British Empire and classified as such at the commencement of the Constitution.
Part-C States: The Chief Commissioner’s provinces in the British Empire, classified as part-C States.
Part-D States: Andaman and Nicobar islands at the commencement of the Constitution.
JVP Committee: Committee appointed in Dec.1948 and was comprised of J.L.Nehru, S. V.Patel and P.Sitaramya to look into the question of State’s reorganization on Linguistic basis.
States Reorganization Commission: The Commission appointed in Nov.1953 by the then Government of India for constituting the States on Linguistic basis. Also known as Fazl Ali Commission after the name of its chairman, Fazl Ali. Its two other members were J.B.Kriplani and H.N. Kunzuru.
By: Pritam Sharma ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses