Consentia on Multidisciplinary Research



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 need 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 be ignored?And most importantly, what will be the fallout of such reorganization in other regions if the centre keeps on creating new states?






In India the constitution provides the parliament with the power to make new states, or alter the boundaries of the existing states.

Article 3 in The Constitution Of India[1]

 Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States: 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;

[2][ 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.

[3][***] ,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.] [4][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 State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory.]




Article 3 of the Constitution of India vests the Parliament with the power to form a new State by separating territory from any State. However, the text of the said provision is silent as to what could be the constitutional benchmark for the Centre to create a new state for a region of an existing State.

When faced with questions relating to the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, we must look to the Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD) which preceded the formulation of the provisions of the Constitution so as to ascertain the Constitutional intent behind the phraseology of the provisions adopted.

India is a Union of States [Art. 1(1)]. The Drafting Committee substituted the word “Union” for the word “Federation” because it preferred to follow the language of the Preamble to the B.N.A Act, 1867; the Committee said that there were advantages in describing India as a “Union”, although its constitution was federal in structure. Amplifying this view in the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar said that the unitary government of South Africa was called a Union so that it was not contrary to usage to describe India as a Union. The Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a Federation, the Federation was not the result of an agreement by the states to join a Federation, and that the Federation, not being the result of an agreement no state had the right to secede from it. The Federation was a Union because it was indissoluble.[5] The word “Union” conveys no such meaning, and if it was intended to make the Union “indissoluble”, the obvious way was to describe India as “an indissoluble Union of States”[6] However, the definition of India as a Union of States emphasizes the important part which the state have to play in our Constitution,[7]  for apart from the States, India does not exist.

When the Constituent Assembly was deliberating in November 1948 on the scope and content of Article 3, there was a proposal by Prof. KT Shah that the legislation constituting a new State from any region of a State should originate from the legislature of the State concerned. Had this procedure been approved, the power to decide the statehood of a region seeking separation would have been vested with the State legislature dominated by the elite of developed regions.

Opposing the same and using the then demand for an Andhra Province as an example, Shri K Santhanam stated as under:[8]

“I wonder whether Professor Shah fully realises the implications of his amendment. If his amendment is adopted, it would mean that no minority in any State can ask for separation of territory, either for forming a new province or for joining an adjacent State unless it can get a majority in that State legislature. I cannot understand what he means by “Originating”. Take the case of Madras Province for instance. The Andhras want separation. They bring up a resolution in the Madras Legislature. It is defeated by a majority. There ends the matter. The way of the Andhras is blocked altogether. They cannot take any further step to constitute an Andhra province…”

Thus Article 3 emerged in its current form. It is the Constitutional intent that the will of the people of a region to form a separate State be the sole criterion for the Centre to initiate the process of State formation. This is the Constitutional benchmark for creating a new State for a region, as amply demonstrated in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly and as reflected in the current phraseology of Article 3 of the Constitution of India.


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.[9]

The intention seems to be give 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.[10] 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.[11]

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.[12]

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 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.[13]

Article 3 (b) provides that a law may be passed to increase the area of any State. This increase may be incidental to the reorganisation 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.[14]

In  R.C Poudyal & Ors. v. Union of India[15], Article was discussed and it was observed: “It cannot be predicated that the article confers on Parliament an unreviewable and unfeltered 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, canot 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.




‘One of the most difficult problems in the framing of India’s new Constitution’, wrote B.N Rau, ‘will be to satisfy the demand for linguistic provinces and other demands of a like nature.’[16]

The Precedent for Article 3 was section 290 of the 1935 Act, by which Parliament at Westminster had the power to alter provincial boundaries. Section 290, in turn, closely followed the terms of Chapter VI of the Australian Constitution, and the parent of all such provisions has been Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.

   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’.[17]

 During the early months of 1947, despite the frowns of the Assembly leadership, the pressure for linguistic provinces continued. Finally the leaders agreed that to appoint a joint sub-committee to consider the matter. It met under Sitaramayya’s chairmanship on 12 June 1947 and unanimously recommended that immediately after independence the Government should appoint a commission to consider creating the new provinces of Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, and possibly others.[18]

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 “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 reorganise 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 recognised test for reorganization of provinces.[19]

 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 reorganisation of states. The JVP Report, submitted on 1st April1949, 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….”.[20]

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 the preservation of the unity and security of the nation, linguistic and cultural affinity of the people and financial, economic and administrative viability.

Against the recommendation of 16 states and three centrally administered territories by the SRC, the Government implemented the recommendation in 1956 after approving 14 states including Andhra Pradesh, which was created earlier in 1953 and six centrally administered territories.[21] The reorganization of states however, could hardly satisfy the people of various segments of Indian society and demands for further new states based on linguistic, ethnic and some other considerations became a part of the polity.  The leaders of both the Central as well as State Governments were found more and more interested to remain in power than to look into the basic needs of the people. They did not like to decentralize power to ensure the transfer of resources and removal of economic imbalances down to the grass-root level.

Accumulation of frustration among the people encouraged unscrupulous elements to raise the demand for new states for acquiring arbitrary power. Their aggressive demands and weakening central leadership compelled the government to divide some of the existing states namely Bombay (1960), Punjab (1966) and Assam (1963, 1970 and 1972) by creating Maharashtra, Gujarat, Haryana, Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya and NEFA. Sikkim became a new state after its merger with India in 1975.  While Nagaland and Mizoram were created with only one Hill District each, Meghalaya had only two Hill Districts in its share.

Though the concept behind the formation of smaller states was to ensure the closeness between administration and the people it was not applied with uniformity.  Gradually political turmoil and social tension on this issue became so acute that it has now become difficult for any Government at centre to withstand the unending parochial and sectarian demands for new states.




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.[22]



The historical perspective of the demand for creation of the state of Telangana cannot be neglected. If we go to the etymology of the word, it means, “Land of Telugu people”. The name itself suggests its association with the Telugu heartland, its geographical status. The geographical status of this state dates back to Puranic times where it has been extensively discussed as Tailangana Desha, the land of till, or oil seeds. It was basically a separate state until Andhra Pradesh became the first state to be created on the basis of language in 1956. Telangana was merged with Andhra to form a unified Andhra Pradesh under a Gentleman’s Agreement. However the State Reorganisation Committee did not support this and neither did the erstwhile Chief Minister of Hyderabad State, Burguala Ramakrishna Rao. Even Nehru was skeptical about it as it might give an expansionist tinge to the reorganization. In December 1953, the States Reorganization Commission was appointed to prepare for the creation of states on linguistic lines. The States Reorganization Commission (SRC) was not in favour of an immediate merger of Telangana region with Andhra state, despite the common language between the two.[23]

Paragraph 382 of States Reorganization Commission Report (SRC) said

“opinion in Andhra is overwhelmingly in favour of the larger unit, public opinion in Telangana has still to crystallize itself. Important leaders of public opinion in Andhra themselves seem to appreciate that the unification of Telangana with Andhra, though desirable, should be based on a voluntary and willing association of the people and that it is primarily for the people of Telangana to take a decision about their future”.[24]

The people of Telangana had several concerns.[25] The region had a less developed economy than Andhra, but with a larger revenue base (mostly because it taxed rather than prohibited alcoholic beverages), which people of Telangana feared might be diverted for use in Andhra. They also feared that planned irrigation projects on the Krishna and Godavari rivers would not benefit Telangana proportionately even though people of Telangana controlled the headwaters of the rivers. It was also feared that the people of Andhra, who had access to higher standards of education under the British Rule, would have an unfair advantage in seeking Government and Educational jobs.

Despite all this, Telangana was merged. Right from the 14th Century to 1956, Telangana was never a part of Andhra. Six centuries of separate existence has led Telangana to acquire an identity of its own. The Fazal Ali Committee whose recommendations led to the redrawing of the provincial boundaries of India had specifically commented on Telangana. It stated that it would be wrong to merge Telangana with Andhra once the old Hyderabad state (comprising of modern day North Karnataka, Marathwada and Telangana) was abolished. Its reasons were simple: a) Economic b) Lack of public support for Andhra Pradesh in Telangana area. It recommended a separate Hyderabad State that may join Andhra at its own option later. This was however overlooked by the Govt. of India in view of a Gentlemen’s Agreement[26] entered into by Telangana and Andhra leaders.

The Andhra leaders promised among others that:-

 a) Telangana would benefit from the planned dams on the Krishna and Godavari rivers.

 b) Telanganites would be given preference in jobs.

 c) 40% of ministers to be from Telangana. While Pt. Nehru had his doubts, he nevertheless gave the go ahead.

By 1969, the illusion had been shattered. Once every clause of the agreement had been broken, Telangana erupted. More than 350 people died in police firing alone. Indira Gandhi in a masterstroke made the leader of the movement, M Chenna Reddy the Governor of UP and thus controlled the flames of what promised to be a repeat of the Telangana Rebellion of the 1940s when the peasants overthrew their landlords and liberated a third of the region.

The commission proposed that the Telangana region be constituted as a separate state with a provision for unification with Andhra state, after the 1961 general elections, if a resolution could be passed in the Telangana state assembly with a two-third majority. This was popularly known as Nehru’s scheme of divorce, which unfortunately failed.

In the years after the formation of Andhra Pradesh state, people of Telangana expressed dissatisfaction over how the agreements and guarantees were implemented. Discontent with the 1956 Gentleman’s agreement intensified in January 1969, when the guarantees that had been agreed on were supposed to lapse. Student agitation for the continuation of the agreement began at Osmania University in Hyderabad and spread to other parts of the region. Government employees and opposition members of the state legislative assembly swiftly threatened “direct action” in support of the students. This movement, also known as Telangana movement, led to widespread violence and deaths of hundreds of people including 369 students.

The emotions and forces generated by the movement in 1969 were not strong enough, however, for a continuing drive for a separate state until 1990s when Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), promised a separate Telangana state if they came to power. BJP created Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand states in year 2000 as promised. But the BJP could not create a separate Telangana state because of the opposition from its coalition partner, Telugu Desam Party. These developments brought new life into the separatist Telangana movement by year 2000. Congress party MLAs from the Telangana region, supported a separate Telangana state and formed the Telangana Congress Legislators Forum.   In another development, a new party called Telangana Rashtra Samithi (or TRS), led by Kalvakuntla Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR), was formed with the single point agenda of creating a separate Telangana state, with Hyderabad as its capital.

Ahead of the 2009 General Elections in India, all the major parties in Andhra Pradesh supported statehood for Telangana. On 11:30 PM 9 December 2009, Mr. P. Chidambaram, Union Minister of Home Affairs, on behalf of the Government of India, announced that a resolution in the Andhra Pradesh assembly for the creation of a separate Telangana state would be passed. Mr. Chidambaram also stated that the process for the formation of a separate Telangana state would be initiated. It was not clear if this initiation of the process meant discussion with everyone involved on how to divide the state or whether the division of the state was being officially announced.

As a result of this unilateral decision by the Government of India, several members of Andhra Pradesh’s legislature submitted their resignations to protest the creation of the new state owing to the pressure from the people in their constituencies. As of 11 December 2009, at least 117 legislators and many Members of Parliament had resigned in protest of the Government’s decision to carve out a new state of Telangana.[27]

Due to the unexpected turn of events, after the parties which promised support to the Telangana state formation on 7 December 2009 in a unanimous all-party meeting at the State level, presided by CM, Rosaiah, and later the party members of these parties made a U-turn on their support bowing to the pressure from the people in their constituency following the 9th December 2009 statement (in support of Telangana state process initiation), the federal government made another statement on 23 December to clarify its intention on the process that it would consult with all groups, political and non-political, before moving forward. It then formed the Justice Sri Krishna committee which has been touring the state consulting with different sections of the society. A report recommending a solution suitable to all constituents is expected to be submitted before 31 December 2010.

In November 2011 Mayawati, the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, proposed dividing it into four states, Avadh Pradesh, Bundelkhand, Paschim Pradesh, and Purvanchal. On 21 November this movement was backed through a “voice vote” by the state assembly, despite criticism from the opposition and claims that the move was made to gain support for the next state election. It must gain the approval of the federal government; however this may be difficult due to the opposition to the creation of Telangana. [28]


The Supreme Court is of the view that the issue of carving out a separate state of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh is a “political question” which cannot be answered by it. It maintained that no larger constitutional question arose at this stage from the issue as there is no decision on the division of the state requiring its interference to examine the legality.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justice K S Radhakrishnan said, “We are of the view that at this stage, the larger constitutional question does not arise for consideration. As far as the division of the state is concerned, it is a political question and we cannot answer that.”

The Bench disfavoured the idea of laying down of guidelines for exercising powers by the government to go into the contentious issue of creating a separate Telangana state from Andhra Pradesh. It said that when a law is proposed for carving out the new state, it would consider the matter afresh. “Till date, no law has been proposed for the purpose of carving out the state and as and when something is proposed or enacted, we will consider it and it will be open for the petitioners to approach this court,” the Bench said giving liberty to the petitioners to withdraw their petitions which were filed when the agitation for Telangana was at its peak.

The two PILs had contended that no constitutional power can be exercised arbitrarily and there must be some guidelines or basis in this regard. Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for K Srinivas Reddy, said, “Power under Article 3 and 4 is the solemn constitutional power and it is obvious that no constitutional power can be exercised arbitrarily and at will without there being a fundamental constitutional paradigm or basis to the exercise of power.”

He said the manner in which the entire matter relating to creation of a new state was being dealt with proved that there was no established principle for the government to act on such issues.




The constitutional provision under Article 3 was incorporated with a benevolent idea to realise 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.[29]

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 profund 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. [30]

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.”



Under the cover of reorganisation of states, a gradual balkanisation of the country should not be encouraged, as that would defeat the preambular 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.

The situation craves  for  some constitutional parameters considering the far-reaching implications resulting from frequent demand for and creation of new states, some of which are a given below as suggestions were given by Siddharth Sharma in his article “Creation of New States: Need for Constitutional Parameters” about what can be done in the present day situation so as to avoid the disintegration of the nation on the name culture and language.

“No new state should be created on the ground of religion, culture or language: This will put a check on the intensifying regional and linguistic politics. Infact “Dhar Commission” appointed by the government of India in 1948 to examine the organisation of the components of Indian union totally rejected the basis of linguistic composition of state. However, politics prevailed over wisdom and states were created and are still being created on linguistic and cultural grounds. No new state under Article 3 should be created on the basis only that majority inhabitant of the proposed new state speak a particular religion or follow a particular culture or profess a particular religion.[31]

 The model bill relating to reorganisation must be passed by the state legislature of the concerned state: In the present constitutional framework creation of any new state depends upon the discretion of the political party or coalition in power at that time in the centre. In fact, the say of the state governments in matters relating to alteration of their boundaries has been reduced to a great extent. It would be rather better if any question that relates to the alteration of any present state begins from the legislature of that state and not from the authority or power at the centre. Before creating any new state, the centre should also consider the popular support at the mass level. This concept of ‘popular support’ would be better manifested if it is made essential for a bill to be passed by the concerned legislature of the state before it is reorganised. This provision w ill also strengthen the federal structure of our constitutional governance. [32]

A permanent body in the name of ‘state re-organisation commission ‘ should be constituted: 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.[33]

Economic viability must be considered before any reorganisation: Economic viability is an important aspect as many times we have witnessed that a newly created state lacks required financial re-sources 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.” [34]








[1]H. M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Vol.1, Silver Jubilee Edition, 4th Edn. ,Universal Law Publishing Co. pg. 12

[2] Subs. By the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act,1955, Sec.2, for the proviso.

[3] The words and letters “Specified in Part A or Part B of the First schedule” omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment Act,1956, Sec 29 and Sch.

[4] Ins. By the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act,1966, Sec.2.

[5]C.A.D., Vol. 7, pg. 43

[6]See the preamble to the Australian Constitution which declares that the states had agreed “to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth”

[7] “The Constitution itself says by Art. 1 that India is a Union of States and in interpreting the constitution one must keep in view the essential structure of a federal or quasi federal Constitution, namely, that the units of the Union have also certain powers as has the Union” : Automobile Transport Ltd. V. Rajasthan (’62) A.SC. 1406,1416

[8] Granville Austin, (2004), New Delhi, Oxford University Press, pg.240-241

[9]Constitution of India, Article 1 ( 2) e

[10]Babulal Parathe v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 51(53-54): (1960) 1 SCR 605: 1960 SCJ 107

[11]Babulal Parathe v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 51(54): (1960) 1 SCR 605: 1960 SCJ 107

[12]Babulal Parathe v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 51(55): (1960) 1 SCR 605: 1960 SCJ 107.

[13]Ref. by President of India under Article 143 (1), AIR 1960 SC 845 (859) : (1960) 3 SCR 250 : (1960) SCJ 933

[14]  Ref. by President of India under Article 143 (1), AIR 1960 SC 845 (859) : (1960) 3 SCR 250 : (1960) SCJ 933

[15] 1993 AIR 1804 1993 SCR (1) 891

[16]Rau, Constitutional Precedents, First Series, pg.17

[17]Granville Austin, (2004), New Delhi, Oxford University Press, pg.240-241

[18] Ibid.

[19]Report of the Linguistic Provinces Commission, para 152(1); Reports,Third Series; p.217

[20]Indian National Congress, Report of the Linguistic Provinces Committee, pp.9 and 15

[21]Reorganization Of  States: The Approach and Arrangements , (1965),The Economic Weekly.

[22]Mula.Sneha Goud, (2013),Separation – Beginning or Demise??,pg-1,2

[23] Law Teacher The Law Professionals ,Telangana Constitutional Issues, <>,  accesed on 1/10/2013

[24] States Reorganisation Commision Report,1955

[25]Mula.Sneha Goud, (2013),Separation – Beginning or Demise??

[26] Law Teacher The Law Professionals ,Telangana Constitutional Issues, <>,  accesed on 1/10/2013

[27] “Telangana: Creation: Protest turns violent, 117 legislators quit”Times of India. 11 December 2009, <> accesed at 26/9/2013

[28]Ashutosh Kumar ,(2010), Exploring the Demand for New States .Economic and Political Weekly, pg -2; “India: Uttar Pradesh assembly backs state division”. BBC News. 21 November 2011. <> (Accessed on 25/09/2013)

[29]Sharma Siddharth ,(2003), Creation of New States: Need for Constitutional Parameters, Economic and Political Weekly, pg.-3973

[30] Ibid.

[31]Sharma Siddharth ,(2003), Creation of New States: Need for Constitutional Parameters, Economic and Political Weekly, pg.-3973

[32]Sharma Siddharth ,(2003), Creation of New States: Need for Constitutional Parameters, Economic and Political Weekly, pg.-3974

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s