The Union and its Territory

Union and its Territory: Part I is a 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 the law on the establishment, renaming, merging, or altering of the borders of the states.

Article 1 – Union Name and Territory

(1) India, that is, Bharat, shall be a union of states.
(2) The states and territories of the United States are defined in the first schedule.
(3) India’s territory consists of the following:

• a) State territories
• b) The territories of the Union listed in the First Schedule; and
• c) Any additional territories that may be acquired.

India, or Bharat, is described in Article 1 as a ‘Union of States,’ rather than a ‘Federation of States.’ This provision addresses two issues: first, the name of the country, and second, the type of polity.

Name India or Bharat?

The name of the nation was not agreed upon by the Constituent Assembly. Some members preferred the current name, while others preferred the traditional name (Bharat) (India). Therefore, the Constituent Assembly was forced to make a decision between the two (“India, that is, Bharat”). Despite the fact that the Constitution is federal in character, the nation is referred to as a “Union” in Article 1 According to Dr. B R Ambedkar, the “Union of States” has gained favour over the “Federation of States” for two reasons:
1) The Indian Federation is not the outcome of a state-to-state agreement, unlike the American Federation.
2) States are not permitted to leave the union.
An unbreakable Union of breakable Units is the Indian Federation.

The federation is referred to as a Union since it cannot be destroyed. The nation and its people are one cohesive whole that lives under a single imperium descended from a single source, despite the fact that they are separated into various states for administrative convenience. To demonstrate that the states lacked the authority to secede and that their union was unshakable, the Americans had to wage a civil war. The Drafting Committee determined that it was better to be explicit from the outset than to leave room for debate or speculative thought.

TERRITORY OF THE UNION

According to Article 1, India’s territory is divided into three categories:

1) Territories of the states
2) Union territories
3) Territories that the Indian government may acquire at any time.

The first schedule of the Constitution lists the names of states and union territories, as well as their territorial extent. There are currently 28 states and 9 union territories in India. The Constitution’s state provisions apply to all states in the same way.

The special provisions (under Part XXI) that apply to Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Sikkim, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, and Karnataka override the general provisions that apply to the states as a group.
Additionally, the Fifth and Sixth Schedules contain separate provisions for the administration of scheduled areas and tribal areas within the states. India, as a sovereign state, has the authority to acquire foreign territories in accordance with international law.

Article 2 – Admission or Establishment of New States

By law, Parliament may admit or establish new states into the Union on whatever terms and conditions it sees fit. 2A. [Sikkim to become a member of the Union] The Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Act of 1975, s. 5 amends the Constitution (w.e.f. 26-4-1975).

Parliament has control over the acceptance or founding of new states under Article 2 of the Constitution. The French colonies of Pondicherry, Karaikal, Mahe, and Yanam as well as the Portuguese colonies of Goa, Daman, and Sikkim were all admitted into India thanks to the use of this power by Parliament. In accordance with Article 2, new states that were not formerly part of India may be admitted or created. On the other hand, Article 3 addresses the formation or creation of new states as a result of the restructuring of already-existing states that are a part of India.

As a result, Article 2 gives the Parliament two powers:

(a) the power to admit new states to the Union of India, and
(b) the power to establish new states.

The first refers to the admission of states that already exist, while the second refers to the creation of states that have never existed before.

Article 3 – Formation of New States and The Alteration of Areas, Boundaries, or Names of Existing States

Parliament may by law—

(a) Create a new state by separating the territory from an existing state, joining two or more states or parts of states, or joining any territory to a part of an existing state;
(b) Expand the size of any State;
(c) Reduce the size of any state;
(d) Change the borders of any state;
(e) Change any state’s name:

No Bill for this purpose may be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President, and unless the proposal in the Bill affects the region, boundaries, or name of any State, the President has referred the Bill to the Legislature of that State for expression of their opinions thereon within the timeframe specified in the reference, or within an additional timeframe the President may permit, and The Confederation of Indian States (Article 3). The Constitution also states that Parliament has the authority to increase or decrease the size of any state, as well as to change its boundaries or name. However, certain procedures must be followed by Parliament in this regard. Only on the President’s recommendation, a Bill enacting any or all of the above changes can be introduced in either House of Parliament. 

Before submitting a measure in Parliament if it affects the territory, borders, or name of a State, the President must request the State Legislature’s input and provide a deadline for the State Legislature to do so. The time limit may be extended by the President. If the State Legislature does not express a position within the allotted period, it is assumed to have done so. The State Legislature may send its opinions to Parliament within the designated or extended time period, but Parliament is not required to accept or act upon them. Furthermore, every time an amendment to the Bill is proposed and accepted, there is no need to make a new reference to the State Legislature. The Billis was approved by a simple majority vote.

It is not essential to seek the opinions of the legislatures of Union Territories prior to the introduction of a Bill that would change the boundaries or names of those territories. Without getting these opinions, a similar bill was filed in Parliament about Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Diu, and Daman, among other states. The fragility and reliance of the States’ territorial integrity on the Union is therefore illustrated by Article 3, in contrast to federations like the United States or Australia where the federation is not permitted to alter the borders or names of States without the States’ assent.

Article 4 – Law Under Articles 2 and 3

Article 4 refers to laws enacted under Articles 2 and 3 that amend the First and Fourth Schedules, as well as supplemental, incidental, and consequential matters.
It reads as follows Article 4:
(1) Any law referred to in article 2 or article 3 shall contain such provisions for amending the First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the law, as well as such additional, incidental, and consequential provisions (including provisions regarding representation in Parliament and in the Legislature or Legislatures of the State or States affected by such law) as Parliament may deem necessary.
(2) For the purposes of article 368, no such law shall be deemed to be an amendment to this Constitution.

It is not essential to seek the opinions of the legislatures of Union Territories prior to the introduction of a Bill that would change the boundaries or names of those territories. Without getting these opinions, a similar bill was filed in Parliament about Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Diu, and Daman, among other states. The fragility and reliance of the States’ territorial integrity on the Union are therefore illustrated by Article 3, in contrast to federations like the United States or Australia where the federation is not permitted to alter the borders or names of States without the States’ assent.

State Reorganization Commission

The States Reorganization Commission (SRC) was constituted by the Central Government in 1953 to make recommendations on the reorganization of state boundaries.

After two years of study, in 1955 the commission suggested that 16 new states and three union territories should be formed by reorganizing the boundaries of the states.
This commission had made it clear in its report that the formation of a new state only on the single scale of language or culture is neither possible nor desirable. Keeping in view the national interest, there is a need for a balanced approach to this issue.
Fazal Ali, KM Panicker, and HN Kunzru were members of the SRC. Former Supreme Court judge Fazal Ali was the chairman. Some of his suggestions were incorporated into the States Reorganization Act of 1956.

Background of State Reorganization Commission

Prior to independence, the provincial boundaries of British India were based on historical, political, military and British strategy. After independence, there was a need to reorganize the boundaries of the states for administrative convenience, but there was no consensus on its basis.
One proposal was related to the reorganization of states on a linguistic basis. Even in 1920, Congress included the formation of states on this basis in the political goals of the party. In the same year, the provincial committees of the party were also formed on this basis. The party expressed its commitment even in the election manifesto of 1945-46, but after independence, the Congress-led government felt that the formation of states on a linguistic basis could pose a threat to national unity.

Dhar commission

In 1948, the Dhar Commission was formed to give a recommendation on whether the formation of states on a linguistic basis would be appropriate. This commission suggested in its report that the formation of states only on the basis of language would not be suitable for the national interest of the country.
In 1952, the demand for a separate state began to gain momentum in the Telugu-speaking areas of Madras State. One of the main demanders, Potti Sriramulu, died during his fast. This culminated in the formation of the Telugu-majority Andhra state in 1953. Due to this, widespread demonstrations started across the country demanding statehood on a linguistic basis. So the government had to constitute SRC.

States Reorganization Act, 1956

Not accepting all the recommendations of the SRC, some of them were included in the Act. The biggest reshuffle in the boundaries of the states after independence was due to this act. Kingdoms were mainly formed on a linguistic basis.

Sequence and Facts about New States and Union Territories Created After 1956

.

You Can Follow on Youtube – Score Better

Also, Read More Articles on Indian Polity

Join Us on Telegram for More Update

.