The Union and its

Territory : Part I
(Articles 1- 4)
• After the adoption of the new Constitution, India a sovereign democratic
republic came into being.
• The new republic was also declared to be a "Union of States".
• The Constitution of 1950 distinguished between three main types of state and a class
s
of territories:
• Part A states, which were the former governors' provinces of British India
• Part B states, which were former princely states or groups of princely states
• Part C states included both the former chief commissioners' provinces and some
princely states
• The sole Part D territory was the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which were
administered by a lieutenant governor appointed by the central government.
• After States Reorganization Act 1956- only two kinds of territories- States and Union
Territories.
 • Compilation of laws pertaining to the
constitution of India as a country and
the union of states that it is made of.
• This part of the constitution contains
Part I the law in the establishment, renaming,
merging or altering the borders of the
states.
 (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a
Union of States.

(2)The States and the territories

thereof shall be as specified in the
ARTICLE 1 : First Schedule.
NAME AND (3)The territory of India shall
comprise –
(a) the territories of the States;
TERRITORY
OF THE (b)the Union territories specified in
the First Schedule; and
UNION
(c)such other territories as may be
acquired.
 • Parliament may
• by law
• admit into the Union, or establish,
• new States
ARTICLE 2 :
• on such terms and conditions as it
ADMISSION OR thinks fit.
ESTABLISHMEN
T OF NEW
STATES • ARTICLE 2A : SIKKIM TO BE
ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNION
{…}
 ARTICLE 3 : FORMATION OF NEW
STATES AND ALTERATION OF AREAS,
BOUNDARIES OR NAMES OF
EXISTING STATES
 Article: 3
• 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.
Explanations to Art. 3

• Explanation I: In this article, in clauses (a) to

(e), “State” includes a Union territory, but in
the proviso, “State” does not include a Union
territory.
•
Explanation II: 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 other State or Union territory to
any other State of Union territory.
• Recently, the name of Allahabad was changed to Prayagraj.
• Another recent change has been in the territory of Jammu and
Kashmir in the year 2019 by Jammu and Kashmir
reorganization act 2019. Through this act state of Jammu and
Kashmir was demolished into the union territory of Jammu
and Kashmir and the union territory of Ladakh. It was the
first time in the history of India that a state was demolished
into a union territory.
 Difference between Article 2 and 3 of COI
Article-2 is related to the admission or establishment of new
states that are not part of India. Thus this Article provides power
to create a new state beyond the present territory.

On the other hand, Article-3 deals with the establishment or

creation of new states after the reorganization of existing states
which are already parts of India.

Article-3 thus demonstrates the vulnerability and dependence of

the States’ territorial integrity on the Union.
 • LAWS MADE UNDER ARTICLES 2
AND 3 TO PROVIDE FOR THE
AMENDMENT OF THE FIRST AND
THE FOURTH SCHEDULE AND
SUPPLEMENTAL, INCIDENTAL
ARTICLE 4 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 a n amendment

of this Constitution for the purposes of Article 368.
Important facts
• The Constitution (40th amendment) Act, 1976, substituted a new
Article 297 so as to vest in Union of India all lands, minerals, and
other things of value underlying the ocean within the territorial
waters or continental shelf or exclusive economic zone of India.
• For creation or destruction of a state the permission from the
concerned state is not mandatory under Indian Constitution. But the
bill has to referred to the concerned state legislature for expressing its
views.
• Prior recommendation of the President of India is necessary for the
state creation/renaming bill. (Article 3). No such provision is
mandatory under Article 2 (new states).
• No Parliamentary sanction is required for the acquisition of territory.
The accession of Indian States to the dominion of India

Before the Indian partition of 1947,  584 Princely States

existed in India, often known as the Native States, which
were not fully and formally the part of British India, areas of
the Indian subcontinent which had not been invaded or
occupied by the British, but under partial control, subject to
subordinate alliances.

The era of the princely states effectively ended in 1947 with

Indian independence. Around 1950, almost all principalities
had either acceded to India or Pakistan. The process of
accession was largely peaceful, with the exception of Jammu
and Kashmir (whose ruler opted for independence but
decided to join India after invasion by Pakistani forces),
Hyderabad (whose ruler opted for independence in 1947,
followed a year later by Indian police action and annexation
of the state.
Junagarh (whose ruler joined Pakistan but
was annexed by India).

While India officially gained independence, there

was a desire for state reorganization in a different
part of India. While the demand for new states
was mainly based on language, constitutional
makers held a variety of views. But since the
Constituent Assembly did not have enough time to
examine such a huge issue and administrative
difficulty, they formed a Commission to
investigate the matter.
Dhar Commission

Accordingly, in June 1948, the Constituent

Assembly announced the establishment of the
Commission of the Linguistic Provinces, chaired
by S.K. Dhar, to examine the feasibility of this.

In this report (December 1948), the Commission

recommended that the reorganization of the
Member States be based on administrative
convenience rather than on a linguistic basis.
JVP Committee (Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel) 

The Dhar Commission report produced general

disappointment and led to the appointment by the Congress
in December 1948 of another Linguistic Provinces
Committee, made up of three members, namely Jawahar Lal
Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, and Pattabhi Sitaramayya, and
thus popularly known as the JVP Committee.

In its report (1949), the Committee reaffirmed the position

of the Dhar Commission. The Committee also recommended
that the creation of new provinces should be postponed for
a few years so that they could concentrate on other matters
of vital issues and not allow ourselves to be distracted by
this issue. The study also stated that if public opinion is
insistent and overwhelming, they have to submit to it as
Democrats subject to certain restrictions on India’s good as
a whole. 
 Continuation of demands for linguistic States
Demands for the formation of States on a linguistic basis
have increased further. In October 1953, after the long-
drawn agitation and death of Potti Sriramulu after a 56-day
hunger strike for the cause,  the Government of India was
forced to create the first linguistic state, Andhra Pradesh, by
separating the Telugu-speaking parts of the Madras State.
Fazal Ali Commission
The creation of the Andhra State increased the demand from
other regions for the formation of States on a linguistic basis.
In December 1953, the Government announced the creation
of a Reorganization Commission of three-member States,
chaired by Fazal Ali, to examine the whole problem. The two
other members of the Commission were H.N. Kunzru and
K.M. Pannikar. In its report, the Commission sought a
balanced approach between regional feelings and national
interests. The Commission proposed abolishing the four-fold
division of states in keeping with the original Constitution and
recommended the establishment of 16 states and 3 central
territories. 
The Commission also established the following four main principles as the
basis for reorganization-
1.Preserving and enhancing the security and unity of the country;
2.Financial, economic and administrative viability;
3.Linguistic and cultural homogeneity;
4.And the scope for the successful implementation of a development
plan.
The States Reorganization Act,1956
It entered into force in November 1956. This Act and the Seventh
Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956 abolished the distinction between
Part A and the Part B States and the Part C States. Instead, they were
classified into two categories: states and territories of the Union. This Act
provided for 14 States and 6 Union Territories to be established as
follows:
States
Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Bombay, J&K(by the instrument of
accession), Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Madras, Mysore, Orissa, Punjab,
Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal. 

Union Territories
Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Laccadive, Minicoy
& Amindivi Islands, Manipur, and Tripura. 
 Case Laws
Berubari Union case, 1960

Facts
The question of whether the parliament could cede an Indian territory to a
foreign country under Article 3 was discussed. The facts of the case were as
follows, during the time of the India-Pakistan partition the area of berubari Union
No. 2 fell in west Bengal. However, there was always a dispute between Pakistan
and India over the said territory. Therefore, the prime minister of India and
Pakistan entered into an agreement to exchange berubari enclaves with Cooch
Bihar enclaves that came under the territory of Pakistan. The matter was
challenged in the Supreme Court. 

Judgment
The Supreme Court held that Article 3 of the Constitution allows the parliament
to adjust the Indian territory internally and it only allows the government to
absorb an acquired territory. No authority is given to give up an Indian territory
to foreign nations therefore the agreement can take place only after
amending Article 368 of the constitution. However, the Court held that since the
agreement relating to berubai involves the cession of the internal territory of the
country and its implementation would take place through Article 1 of the
constitution, the government of India can implement such agreement by
amending Article 368. Hence, the 9th constitutional amendment was passed to
give effect to the India-Pakistan agreement relating to the cession of territory. 
Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union Of India (1969)

Facts of the case 

• There was a border dispute between India and Pakistan as to the

Great Rann of Kutch, marshy land that lies between the Sindh
province (Pakistan) and the mainland of kutch (India).

• Due to its marshy nature and being underwater for approximately four
months a year the boundaries of the land were not defined. Both
Pakistan and India approached the arbitration for resolving the
dispute.

• As a result, the arbitration awarded the disputed land to Pakistan.

India accepted the award and proceeded with the cession of the
territory.

• While the treaty was being executed some petitioners approached the
supreme court claiming that the land awarded to Pakistan is a cession
of the union territory of India and any alteration to the boundaries of
the union territory of India invites amendment of the first schedule of
the Constitution (as discussed above). 
Argument presented by the Government of India
The government argued that the boundaries of the disputed area kept
shifting due to the nature of the area. The boundaries of the Union of
India were not certain and it did not include the disputed area.
Therefore, the amendment to the 1st schedule was not attracted, and by
the execution of the treaty, the boundary can be defined.

Supreme Court’s view on this case 

The Supreme Court supported the government by saying that the
arbitration award does not obligate the Indian government to cede the
Indian territory therefore no constitutional amendment is necessary to
cede the Indian territory. Furthermore, it stated that the government of
India has accepted the award by the arbitration, And put forward that
when a Treaty comes into force it needs to be complied with by all the
wings of the government that is the judiciary, the legislature, and the
executive, or any of them who possesses the part to make the necessary
changes.

The Court while deciding on the issue said that the case deals with
international law as well as domestic law. Therefore, it discussed
provisions from various other countries like the United States of
America, England, and France to support the view that the Indian
Constitution does not provide any clear direction towards enforcement of
treaties as provided under the Constitution of America and France. 
• The Court stated that the present case does not deal with the
cession of Indian territory but defining the boundaries between two
States. Courts discussed Article 253 which empowers the Parliament
to make any law regarding the implementation of a treaty or an
agreement.

• Also referred to the Article 1,3 and 73 and entries 13 and 14 of the
list one in the Seventh Schedule to emphasize the powers that the
Parliament has to implement International treaties with foreign
Nations. 

• Therefore the Supreme Court concluded that the power of

government to seed the next line through International treaties and
agreements is it is an exclusive power of the Parliament and no
Constitutional provisions are needed to be amended but it cannot
change the boundaries of the Union of India that have been already
marketed without amending the first schedule of the Constitution. 
Mullaperiyar Environment Protection Forum V. Union of India,
(2006) 3 SCC 643: AIR 2006 SC 1428

In this case, the validity of Section 108 of the State

Reorganization Act, 1956 which allows for the
continuation of existing agreements between the existing
states at that time. The Court held that the legislative
powers referred to Article 3 and Article 4 are supreme
and not subject to or bound by Article 246 and List II and
List III of the Seventh Schedule.

It also held that the constitutional validity of the

legislation referred to Article 3 and Article 4 can not be
questioned on the grounds of lack of legislative
competence in relation to the list in the Seventh
Schedule. 
Ram Kishore Sen v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 644,
648: (1966) 1 SCR 430

• The Constitutional Act (18th amendment) 1966 adds two

explanations to Article 3, incorporating the decision of the
Supreme Court in this case, which clarified the term
“State” in the term “State” which includes the term “Union
Territories” but since there is no such necessity with regard
to the provision of Article 3, it is also provided that the
term “State” does not include the term “Union Territories”.

• The reason is that, in the event of a change and

alternation in the borders of the State, it is necessary to
seek the opinion of the States concerned; but since the
Union Territory is governed by the Parliament itself, the
inclusion of the Union Territory in the term “State” would
have been redundant.
• The second explanation further clarifies the
Parliament’s Power. It provides that Parliament’s
power under Article 3 clause (a) includes the power
to form a new State or Union Territory by uniting a
part of any State or Union Territory with any other
State or Union Territory.