Reorganisation of States under Article 3

A State legislature has a consultative, not consenting, role when Parliament reorganises that State under Article 3. It may express its views on the proposal, but it cannot veto, prevent, or impose binding conditions on Parliament’s decision.

Constitutionally required consultation

Before such a Bill is introduced in Parliament, it requires the President’s recommendation. If the proposal affects a State’s area, boundaries, or name, the President must refer it to that State legislature for expressing its views within a specified or extended period.

• The legislature may support, oppose, or suggest changes to the proposal through its deliberations and resolution.
• Once the prescribed period expires, the Bill may be introduced even if the legislature has not expressed its views.

Views are not binding on Parliament

The Constitution requires an opportunity for consultation, but not the State legislature’s consent. Parliament may accept or reject its views and may enact a different arrangement.

• In Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay, the Supreme Court held that Article 3 does not require Parliament to obtain the State legislature’s consent.
• A Bill amended in Parliament need not be referred again to the State legislature merely because its final form differs from the referred proposal.

Parliamentary primacy and federal significance

A law under Article 3 is passed through the ordinary legislative process. Under Article 4, consequential changes to the First and Fourth Schedules are not treated as constitutional amendments under Article 368.

• This arrangement gives the Union substantial authority to alter the territorial structure of States while preserving a limited consultative safeguard.
• For the proviso to Article 3, the term State does not include a Union Territory; therefore, a Union Territory legislature has no equivalent constitutional right of consultation.

How UPSC asks this