Article 3 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 3 of the Constitution of India deals with the formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing States. This provision grants the Parliament the power to reorganize the territorial boundaries of India.
🧾 Text of Article 3 – Constitution of India
Article 3: 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 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 within a period specified by the President.
However, the Parliament is not bound to accept or act on the views of the State Legislature.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 3
1. Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay (1960 AIR 51)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the formation of Maharashtra and Gujarat under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Article 3, stating that the procedure under Article 3 does not violate federal principles. It ruled that India is not a federation of sovereign states, and the Parliament has supremacy in reorganizing states.
2. Mangal Singh v. Union of India (AIR 1967 SC 944)
Facts: Validity of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 was challenged.
Held:
The court reaffirmed that Parliament has full power to reorganize States under Article 3. The only procedural safeguard is the requirement to refer the Bill to the State Legislature, but Parliament is not bound by the State's opinion.
3. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (AIR 2006 SC 3127)
Though primarily about representation in Rajya Sabha, the case reaffirmed that the Indian Constitution is quasi-federal, and Article 3 grants Parliament dominant power over state boundaries and territories.
4. State of West Bengal v. Union of India (AIR 1963 SC 1241)
Held:
State consent is not required for altering boundaries. The doctrine of federal supremacy applies, and the Union Government can reorganize states unilaterally, provided it follows the procedure.
🔍 Key Highlights:
Parliament is supreme in matters of state reorganization.
Presidential recommendation is mandatory before introducing such a Bill.
State Legislature's opinion is sought, but not binding.
No need for State’s consent for reorganization.
Reorganization Act is not unconstitutional if it complies with the procedure of Article 3.
🧭 Examples of Reorganization under Article 3:
| Year | Act | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 1956 | States Reorganisation Act | Linguistic reorganization |
| 2000 | Bihar Reorganisation Act | Creation of Jharkhand |
| 2000 | Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act | Creation of Uttarakhand |
| 2014 | Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act | Creation of Telangana |
RELATED Blog
0 comments