Union and its Territory

Article 1 describes India, that is, Bharat as a 'Union of States' rather than a 'Federation of States'. This provision deals with two things: one, name of the country, and two, type of polity.

• The country is described as 'Union' although its Constitution is federal in structure.
• According to Dr B.R. Ambedkar, the phrase 'Union of States' has been preferred to 'Federation of States' for two reasons: one, the Indian Federation is not the result of an agreement among the states like the American Federation; and two, the states have no right to secede from the federation.
• The federation is a Union because it is indestructible. The country is an integral whole and divided into different states only for the convenience of administration.

According to Article 1, the territory of India can be classified into three categories:

1. Territories of the states.
2. Union territories (specified in the First Schedule).
3. Territories that may be acquired by the Government of India at any time.

The 'Territory of India' is a wider expression than the 'Union of India' because the latter includes only states while the former includes not only the states but also union territories and territories that may be acquired by the Government of India in future. The states are the members of the federal system and share a distribution of powers with the Centre. The union territories and the acquired territories, on the other hand, are directly administered by the Central government.

Article 2 empowers the Parliament to 'admit into the Union of India, or establish, new states on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit'. Thus, Article 2 grants two powers to the Parliament: (a) the power to admit into the Union of India new states; and (b) the power to establish new states.

The first refers to the admission of states which are already in existence, while the second refers to the establishment of states which were not in existence before. Notably, Article 2 relates to the admission or establishment of new states that are not part of the Union of India.

Article 3, on the other hand, relates to the formation of or changes in the existing states of the Union of India. It empowers the Parliament to: (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; and (e) alter the name of any state.

In other words, Article 3 deals with the internal re-adjustment inter se of the territories of the constituent states of the Union of India.

However, Article 3 lays down two conditions in this regard:

1. A bill contemplating the above changes can be introduced in the Parliament only with the prior recommendation of the President.
2. Before recommending the bill, the President has to refer the same to the state legislature concerned for expressing its views within a specified period.

The President (or Parliament) is not bound by the views of the state legislature and may either accept or reject them, even if the views are received in time. Further, it is not necessary to make a fresh reference to the state legislature every time an amendment to the bill is moved and accepted in Parliament.

Article 4 itself declares that laws made for admission or establishment of new states (under Article 2) and formation of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing states (under Article 3) are not to be considered as amendments of the Constitution under Article 368.

This means that such laws can be passed by a simple majority and by the ordinary legislative process. Thus, Parliament can redraw the political map of India according to its will. The territorial integrity or continued existence of any state is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, India is rightly described as 'an indestructible union of destructible states'.

There was a continuous demand from southern regions for linguistic reorganization of states.

• Dhar Commission (1948): Appointed under S.K. Dhar. It recommended the reorganization of states on the basis of administrative convenience rather than linguistic factor.
• JVP Committee (1948): Consisted of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel and Pattabhi Sitaramayya. In its report in 1949, it formally rejected language as the basis for reorganization of states.

However, in October 1953, the Government of India was forced to create the first linguistic state, known as Andhra state, by separating the Telugu speaking areas from the Madras state, following prolonged popular agitations and the death of Potti Sriramulu after a 56-day hunger strike.

The creation of Andhra state intensified the demand from other regions for creation of states on linguistic basis.

• Fazl Ali Commission (1953): A 3-member States Reorganisation Commission was appointed under the chairmanship of Fazl Ali, with K.M. Panikkar and H.N. Kunzru as members. It broadly accepted language as the basis of reorganization of states. But, it rejected the theory of 'one language-one state'.

By the States Reorganisation Act (1956) and the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act (1956), the distinction between Part A and Part B states was done away with and Part C states were abolished. As a result, 14 states and 6 union territories were created on November 1, 1956.