Art. 3 Part I: Union and its Territory

Formation of New States and Alteration of Areas, Boundaries or Names of Existing States

Exact text — Constitution of India

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... and the period so specified has expired...

In Plain English

What this Article actually means

This is the actual legal engine behind India's many state reorganisations since 1950 — the States Reorganisation Act of 1956 (which redrew India's internal map largely along linguistic lines) and every subsequent state creation (Haryana, Nagaland, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Telangana, and more) all trace back to this single Article. Critically, the affected state legislature must be consulted, but Parliament isn't bound by its opinion — it's a genuine 'reference for views', not a veto.

Why This Matters To You

How it shows up in everyday life

This is why creating a new state, unlike most other significant constitutional changes, only needs an ordinary Parliamentary majority (not a special constitutional amendment) — a deliberate design choice by the framers to keep internal boundary adjustments relatively flexible compared to other constitutional changes.

Landmark Cases

How courts have interpreted this Article

Babulal Parate v. State of BombayAIR 1960 SC 51 — Held Parliament need not send a Bill back to the state legislature for a fresh opinion even if the Bill is substantially amended after the initial reference — the consultation requirement is satisfied by the original reference. Verify this case

Read alongside this one

Art. 4 — Consequential Amendments to Schedules Art. 1 — Name and Territory of the Union

Frequently Asked

Quick answers about Article 3

Can a state block its own reorganisation by rejecting the proposal?

No — the state legislature's views are sought but not binding on Parliament, which can proceed with the reorganisation regardless of the state's objection.

Does creating a new state require a two-thirds majority?

No — unlike a constitutional amendment, a Bill under Article 3 only needs an ordinary majority in both Houses of Parliament, since Article 4 specifically says such laws aren't 'amendments' under Article 368.

← PreviousArticle 2A: (Repealed) Sikkim's Association With the Union Next →Article 4: Laws Made Under Articles 2 and 3 to Provide for Amendment of the First and Fourth Schedules and Supplemental Matters

The text above reproduces Article 3 of the Constitution of India as amended to date, for general educational reference. It is public-domain legislative text, but we recommend cross-checking the authoritative version at legislative.gov.in or india.gov.in before relying on it for a legal matter. The explanation, examples and FAQs are general information, not legal advice — consult a qualified advocate for guidance on your specific situation.