Answer:

Article 3 authorizes the Parliament to create a new state, unite two or more states or their parts, increase, decrease, alter boundaries or rename any state. A Bill to implement such changes will originate in parliament but needs to be referred to concerned state legislatures. However, their view is not binding. For a union territory even reference need not be made to the concerned legislature.

Thus, Parliament can redraw the political map of India according to its will. Hence, the territorial integrity or continued existence of any state is not guaranteed by the Constitution implying India is an ‘indestructible union of destructible states’. The Union government can destroy the states whereas the state governments cannot destroy the Union. This was important for the unity of India in the context of fissiparous tendencies post partition and even today when many regions are demanding newer states on ever narrowing ethnic and tribal identities which is practically impossible.

Also, union has been liberal in accepting demands regarding creation of new states based on linguistic, administrative and development aspirations of people. This formula has been pretty successful in maintaining the ‘unity in diversity’.

But, it is also against the spirit of cooperative federalism which demands co-equal distribution of power between centre and states but makes states mere appendages of the union as they have almost no say in their own existence. It undermines the will of the locals and is against the concepts of diversity and pluralism. It creates dissent amongst people and alienates them from political leadership and constitutional machinery. The resentment in Andhra region post formation of Telangana and continued insurgency in North-East are some examples.

Hence, a relook seems plausible. Possible alternatives can be:

♤ Parliament must follow the will of state legislature in case of special majority.

♤ The changes if any should originate in the state legislature unless special circumstances demand otherwise.

But any change in the provisions of the Article 3 can have unimagined consequences. Hence, discussion with all the stakeholders should be done. Meanwhile, use of article 3 should be judiciously mixed with the provisions of the 5th and 6th schedules for greater incorporation of local needs and aspirations while maintaining the unity of the country.