Bharati Law Review, July – Sept.

, 2016 163

CREATION OF NEW STATES IN INDIA

Mr. Suvir Raghuvansh

Abstract
The demand for creation of new states fuelled, more often than
not, by linguistic and regional fanaticism, has once again
assumed a new urgency. The increasing demand for new states
raises a number of questions with regard to the well-being of
India’s federal democratic polity. This study is being conducted by
the researcher to investigate into the demands for the creation of
new states on linguistic basis in India and the Parliaments power
to do so. The basic objectives are to know on what basis the
Parliament creates new states, how Parliament deals with the
demand for new states on linguistic basis and the Parliaments
power to form new states. The questions that need to be asked
are: Does India really needs such reorganization? Can the
boundaries of Indian Union be redrawn piecemeal to satisfy the
aspirants of a particular region and others with a stronger case
are ignored? And, what will be the fallout of such reorganization
in other regions if the centre keeps on creating new states?
Introduction
The Constitution of India is the supreme law of our country and
hence every law enacted by the government of India must conform
to it. We know that it came into effect on 26th January, 1950.
Our Constitution avows the ''Union of India'' to be a sovereign,
democratic republic, assuring its citizens of justice, equality, and
liberty and to promote among them all fraternity. In 1976,
by constitutional amendments, the words 'socialist', 'secular' and
'integrity' and 'Fraternity' were added. Our Constitution is the
longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the entire
world. It contains 395 (three hundred and ninety five) articles in
22 (twenty two) parts, 12 (twelve) schedules and 94 (ninety four)
amendments. There are totally 117,369 words in our constitution.
It was written in English. That too, it was also translated into
Hindi language officially. Amendments to the constitution can be
made by Parliament, yet the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held
(though it is rather controversial) that not every constitutional
amendment is permissible. An amendment should respect the


Advocate, B.A.LL.B.(H).

Published in Articles section of www.manupatra.com

Bharati Law Review, July – Sept., 2016 164

'basic structure' of the constitution, which is immutable. The

procedure is laid out in Article 368.
One of special features of the Union of India is that the union is
indestructible but the power conferred on Parliament includes the
power to form a new state or union territory by uniting a part of
any State or Union territory to other State or Union territory. The
identity of States can be altered or even expunged by the
Parliament. The Constituent Assembly declined a motion in
concluding stages to designate India as '' Federation of States''.
Article 1 elucidates India a ''Union of States''. These states are
specified in the First Schedule of the constitution. First Schedule
lists the States and Territories of India and also lists if any
changes to borders of them. Articles 2, 3 and 4 enable parliament
by law admit a new state, increase, decrease the area of any state.
Formation of new State
The authors of Indian constitution, unlike the current generation
of Indians, did not believe that the states, districts and mandals
within India are static, unchanging, and permanent. They had the
maturity to accept that states would evolve and change, and
hence made provisions for creation of new states in Indian Union.
Constitution of India
Article 3 of Indian Constitution addresses the topic of ‘Formation
of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of
existing States’. It says; 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 Explanation I In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), State

Published in Articles section of www.manupatra.com

Bharati Law Review, July – Sept., 2016 165

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 State or Union territory to
any other State or Union territory.
Scope of Article 3
The States and the Territories thereof after the amendment of
Article 1(2) reads: State and the territories thereof shall be as
specified in the First Schedule. The Constitution contemplates
changes of the territorial limits of the constituent states and there
is no guarantee about their territorial integrity.1
The intention seems to be given an opportunity to the State
legislature to express its view within the time allowed. If the State
Legislature fails to avail itself of the opportunity such failure
would not invalidate the introduction of the Bill. There is nothing
in the proviso to indicate that Parliament must accept or act upon
the view of the State Legislature. Indeed two State Legislatures
may express totally divergent views. All that is contemplated is
that the Parliament should have before it the views of the State
legislature to the proposals contained in the Bill and then be free
to deal with the bill in any manner it thinks fit and following the
usual practice and procedure prescribed by and under the rules of
business.2 What is to be referred to the State Legislature is the
proposal contained in the Bill. It is not necessary that every time
an amendment of the proposal contained in the bill is moved and
accepted, a fresh reference should be made to the State
Legislature.3
Parliament has been vested with the exclusive power of admitting
or establishing new states, increasing or diminishing the area of
an existing State or altering its boundaries, the legislature or
legislatures of the States concerned having only the right to an
expression of views on the proposals. For making such territorial
adjustments it is not necessary even to invoke the provisions
governing constitutional amendments.4
Article 3(a) enables Parliament to form a new State and this can
be done either by the separation of the territory from any state or
by uniting two or more States or parts of States, or by uniting any

1 INDIA CONST. art.1 (2) (e).

2 BabulalParathe v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 51(53-54): (1960) 1
S.C.R. 605: 1960 S.C.J. 107.
3 Id.
4 Id.

Published in Articles section of www.manupatra.com

Bharati Law Review, July – Sept., 2016 166

territory to a part of any state. There can be no doubt that foreign

territory which after the acquisition becomes a part of the territory
of India under Article 1 (3) (c) is included in the last clause of
Article 3 (a). Thus Article 3(a) deals with the problem of the
formation of a new state and indicates the modes by which a new
state can be formed.5
Article 3 (b) provides that a law may be passed to increase the
area of any State. This increase may be incidental to the
reorganization of States under Article 3 ( b ) may have been taken
out from the area of any state may also be the result of adding to
any state any part of the territory specified in Article 1 (3) (C).
Article 3 (d) refers to the alteration of the boundaries of any State
and such alterations would be the consequence of any of the
adjustments specified in Article 3 (a),(b),(c). Article 3 (e) refers to
the alteration of the name of any State.6
In R.C.Poudyal & Ors. v. Union of India7, Article was discussed and
it was observed: “It cannot be predicted that the article confers on
Parliament an unreviewable and unfiltered power immune from
judicial scrutiny. The power is limited by the fundamentals of the
Indian constitutionalism and those terms and conditions which
the Parliament may deem fit to impose, cannot be inconsistent
and irreconcilable with the foundational principles of the
Constitution and cannot violate or subvert the constitutional
scheme. The validity of a statute is to be tested by the
constitutional power of the Legislature at the time of its
enactment by that Legislature, and if thus tested, it is beyond the
legislative power, it is not rendered valid.
Criterion for the formation of new States
The demands for the formation of linguistic states began in
August 1946, little more than a month after the elections to the
Constituent Assembly. Pattabhi Sitaramayya, a member of the
Congress Working Committee and Congress President in 1948,
called for the formation of linguistic states and said that ‘the
whole problem must be taken up as the first and foremost
problem to be solved by the Constituent Assembly.
During the freedom movement, the Indian National Congress had
favoured the provincial division of the country on linguistic basis.
The Nehru Committee of All Parties Conference in 1928 said

5 Ref. by President of India under Article 143 (1), A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 845 (859):
(1960) 3 S.C.R.250 : (1960) S.C.J. 933.
6 Id.
7 Id.

Published in Articles section of www.manupatra.com

Bharati Law Review, July – Sept., 2016 167

“language as a rule corresponds with a special variety of culture,

tradition and literature. In the linguistic area all these factors will
help in the general progress of the province.” However, after
attaining Independence the top leaders of the Congress were not
unanimous on provincial division of the country on linguistic
basis.
The Linguistic Provinces Commission also known as Dhar
Commission, which was appointed by the Government on June
17, 1948 at the recommendation of Constituent Assembly
considered it “inadvisable” to reorganize the Provinces mainly on
linguistic basis. It suggested that geographical continuity, and
financial self sufficiency, administrative convenience, capacity for
future development should be generally the recognized test for
reorganization of provinces.
Similarly, the Jawaharlal-Vallabhbhai- Pattabi Committee, that
was appointed in the same year by the Indian National Congress
in its findings sounded a caution against linguistic principles and
shifted its emphasis on security, unity and economic prosperity of
the country for reorganization of states. The JVP Report,
submitted on April 1, 1949, contained a perceptive analysis of the
situation, and two of its sentences reflect its own difficulties as
well as the dilemma racking India: “We feel that the present is not
an opportune moment for the formation of new provinces.”Yet the
members also believed that “If public sentiment is insistent and
overwhelming, we, as democrats, have to submit it, but subject to
certain limitations in regard to the good of India as a whole….”.8
In the absence of unanimity among the then central leadership on
provincial division on linguistic consideration, reorganization of
states was kept in abeyance for some time. However, Sriramalu, a
prominent Congress leader from Telugu speaking region of the
then Madras Province went on fast unto death from October 19,
1952 demanding a separate state for Telugu speaking people.
Large scale violence that followed his death after 56 days of
fasting on December 15, 1952, compelled the Government to
announce the creation of the first state on linguistic consideration
and Andhra Pradesh was formally created on October 1, 1953.
This opened a flood gate of demands for creation of new states
and the Government finally appointed a State Reorganization
Commission (SRC) in 1954 with Justice Fazl Ali as Chairman and
Hriday Nath Kunzru and K.M.Pannikar as members. By and large
the SRC recommended creation of states taking into consideration

8 Indian National Congress, Report of the Linguistic Provinces Committee, pp.9

and 15.

Published in Articles section of www.manupatra.com

Bharati Law Review, July – Sept., 2016 168

the preservation of the unity and security of the nation, linguistic

and cultural affinity of the people and financial, economic and
administrative viability.
Supreme Court verdict

A constitutional democracy also refers to legal verdicts which

decide on the interpretation and set a precedent on applicability of
a certain clause from Indian constitution.

Back in 1960 a Bill was introduced in the Indian Parliament

proposing the formation of Maharashtra and Gujarat. This Bill
was referred by the President to the State Assembly to obtain their
views. Upon receiving the views, the Bill was passed in the
Parliament. A petition was filed against this by BabulalParante
in High Court of Bombay:

His contention was that the said Act was passed in contravention
of the provisions of Art. 3 of the Constitution, since the
Legislature of Bombay had not been given an opportunity of
expressing its views on the formation of the composite State.
The High Court dismissed the petition.

In this case, Babu lal Parante v. State of Bombay9, the Court

explains the provisions of Article 3 of Indian Constitution:

The period within which the State Legislature must express its
views has to be specified by the President; but the President may
extend the period so specified. If, however, the period specified or
extended expires and no views of the State Legislature are
received, the second condition laid down in the proviso is fulfilled
in spite of the fact that the views of the State Legislature have not
been expressed.

The intention seems to be to give an opportunity to the State

Legislature to express its views within the time allowed; if the
State Legislature fails to avail itself of that opportunity, such
failure does not invalidate the introduction of the Bill.

Nor is there anything in the proviso to indicate that Parliament

must accept or act upon the views of the State Legislature.

Clearly, Indian Constitution envisioned a situation where a state

may refuse to provide its view or provide negative views about a

9 1960 A.I.R. 51, 1960 S.C.R. (1) 605.

Published in Articles section of www.manupatra.com

Bharati Law Review, July – Sept., 2016 169

formation of a new state, and therefore gave full powers to Indian

Parliament to go ahead with its decisions irrespective of opposition
from the State Assembly.
The case of Telangana
Hyderabad is the largest city of the Telangana region in Andhra
Pradesh. A Movement for separate Telangana State is a burning
topic since 1948. Telangana came under the Muslim rule of the
Delhi Sultanatein the 14th century. In 1948, Indian Army ousted
Nizam to include Hyderabad and its regions into India. In 1953,
Andhra was formed as a State under Reorganization of States
based on linguistic lines. Though there was a demand for a
separate state of Telangana in the year 1956, it was merged with
Andhra, which has resulted in several protests in Hyderabad. It
was quelled by police killing and also, some of the protestors.
Conclusion
The constitutional provision under Article 3 was incorporated with
a benevolent idea to realize geographical and economic unification
of India but now it seems that this provision has become a tool for
satisfying regional and linguistic aspirations of people and an
instrument to achieve electoral gains. The two terms “Linguistic”
and “Cultural” have never been more misused than in recent
times.10
It is difficult to understand what has happened to our power of
assimilation and why the feeling of linguistic and regional
fanaticism is gaining ground day by day. The increasing demand
for new states apparently manifests this tendency cropping up in
our country and unfortunately by creating more states, our
government has further intensified the problem.
The notion of “small is beautiful” seems to be illusionary; at least
past experiences suggest that. It would be the most profound
mistake if anyone thought that creation of new states is panacea
for all the problems. The need of the hour is to concentrate more
on development of the states already existing. It is immaterial
whether the state is small or big; what is required is a strong
political will to govern with full honesty and sincerity.
Development requires a conducive atmosphere to be created by
both; leaders and citizens.11

10 Sharma Siddharth(2003), Creation of New States: Need for Constitutional

Parameters, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY,p. 3973.
11 Id.

Published in Articles section of www.manupatra.com

Bharati Law Review, July – Sept., 2016 170

The provision under Article 3 of the Constitution, that the centre

may destroy the very existence of a state by altering its boundary
lines in a way it chooses, gives a picture of unitary form of
government actually prevailing in our country in the garb of
federalism. The fundamental principle that a federation depends
upon the territorial integrity of states seems to have been
overlooked.
The further division of the country has lead to turmoil and
agitation in the country leading to a further growing demand for
creation of new states, where everyone wants a state according to
his/her own whims and fancies. The regional ties have become so
strong that it has given rise to a phase where in the regional roots
have gained predominance over the national unity and integrity.
There are fasts until death and people are coming out on roads
asking for their own state as if state is nothing but a toy that
could be handled and modified according to them. And all of this
is being done in the name of Linguistic division to support the
development of the state and ensure better governance.
The research done in this project on the basis of the data collected
goes on to prove the hypothesis that “The power to form new
states is resulting into divisions of nation and thus is a threat to
national integrity.”
Suggestions
Under the cover of reorganization of states, a gradual
balkanization of the country should not be encouraged, as that
would defeat the Preamble mandate of and our persistent quest
for ‘national integrity’.
The need of the hour is to concentrate more on development of the
states already existing. It is immaterial whether the state is small
or big; what is required is a strong political will to govern with full
honesty and sincerity. Development requires a conducive
atmosphere to be created by both; leaders and citizens and not
division of states on the claims of aiding the development of the
states.
There should be formation of a new body which looks into state
reorganization. Formation of new states should be left to a
competent commission or to any other body or authority that may
be set up either ad hoc for a particular purpose or in general
terms as a kind of statutory, constitutional authority having
quasi-judicial character that may decide upon the issue.
Economic viability is an important aspect as many times we have

Published in Articles section of www.manupatra.com

Bharati Law Review, July – Sept., 2016 171

witnessed that a newly created State lacks required financial

resources to carry on its functions. Therefore, no new state should
be created unless it has the resources or revenue to incur at least
60 per cent of its expenditure from the day of its coming into
existence.”12



12 Id.

Published in Articles section of www.manupatra.com