Article 1. Name and territory of the Union.

   (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.

1[(2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.]

   (3) The territory of India shall comprise-

(a) the territories of the States;

2[(b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule;
and]

(c) such other territories as may be acquired.

Article 1 of the Constitution states the constitutional identity and geographical boundaries of the Republic by saying “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.”. It includes the 'State Territories', 'Union Territories' and any future changes in the National Territory and puts the States and Union Territories in the First Schedule of the Constitution. The Article 1 thus not only combines a descriptive element (Name and Composition) with a structural one, But also to reaffirm the indissoluble nature of the Union, while giving Parliament the possibility to change the geographical set up through constitutional procedures and statutory instruments only.

  • Case 1:

    In re: Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves (Berubari case), (1960) 3 SCR 250 (India).

    1. Addressed the constitutional procedure for ceding Indian territory to a foreign state.
    2. Held that transfer of territory that affects the First Schedule requires a constitutional process; in some circumstances a constitutional amendment may be necessary.
    3. Clarified the interplay between executive treaties and Parliament’s role under the Constitution.
    4. Directly engages Article 1’s territorial concept by treating cession and exchange as constitutionally sensitive acts.
    5. Guides how territorial adjustments must be effected to preserve constitutional validity.

  • Case 2:

    Cases on Jammu & Kashmir reorganisation and related petitions (post-2019).

    1. Challenged the constitutional and procedural validity of reorganising a state into Union Territories.
    2. Examined the scope of Parliament’s power to alter state status and the role of presidential orders.
    3. Raised questions about federal consent, legislative competence and the First Schedule’s modification.
    4. Illustrates contemporary tensions between national legislative power and regional autonomy under Article 1.
    5. Ongoing jurisprudence continues to refine how Article 1 operates in large-scale territorial changes.

  • Constitutional identity: Article 1 names the polity and anchors the Constitution’s federal design.
  • Territorial clarity: It ties the nation’s limits to the First Schedule while allowing for future acquisitions.
  • Parliamentary competence: Parliament can reorganise states and create or alter Union Territories, subject to constitutional safeguards.
  • Limits on change: Judicially enforceable constraints (basic structure) ensure territorial changes do not undermine the Constitution’s core.
  • Practical governance: The Article provides legal basis for administrative reorganisation, accession, and international territorial arrangements.

  • 7th Amendment, 1956: Reorganisation of states following the States Reorganisation Act; the First Schedule and territorial descriptions were substantially revised to reflect linguistic and administrative reorganisation.
  • 36th Amendment, 1975: Incorporated Sikkim as a State of the Union, altering the First Schedule and expanding the territory of India.
  • Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation, 2019: Parliamentary legislation and presidential orders reconstituted the former State of Jammu & Kashmir into two Union Territories; this changed entries in the First Schedule and the practical territorial map of the Union.
  • Periodic updates: The First Schedule has been amended repeatedly by Parliament to reflect new states, changes in names, and adjustments to Union Territory status; many of these changes are effected by constitutional amendment or specific reorganisation statutes.

Article 1 is compact but foundational: it names the Republic and defines its territorial composition while embedding flexibility for lawful change. Its true importance lies less in the words themselves and more in how those words interact with amendment power, parliamentary competence and judicial review. Any alteration to the map of India must navigate constitutional procedures and the limits imposed by the basic structure. For practitioners and students, the key lesson is that territorial reorganisation is a constitutional exercise that balances national unity, state autonomy and democratic legitimacy.

Article 2. Admission or establishment of new States.

Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.

Legal Analysis

  1. Article 2 of the Constitution provides for the admission or formation of new States by virtue of Article 2 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution's structural underpinnings are that Article 2 sets out what are the terms and conditions upon which the new States are admitted to or established within the Union. This power vests in the law-making organs of the State and that power is to be exercised “on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.” By this, it would seem that Parliament has full control over the law for the admission and establishment of new States within the Constitution.
  2. This broad discretionary authority is, however, limited by the provisions and structural constraints set down in the Constitution, specifically Article 4. These provisions, in conjunction with Articles 1 and 3, provide the structure for the Union and are procedural.
  3. It is this structure and procedure which limits the discretion of the lawmakers and which has been used in cases such as Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay, 1959 INSC 105; [1960] 1 SCR 605 to validate Parliament's legislative authority regarding the establishment of new States. That is the discretion exercised within the structure of the Constitution, not one outside it.
  4. Further, the power to admit to or form the new States is a valid legislative power, which, according to the Supreme Court in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharat Sripadagala Var U U. v. State Of Kerala, 1973 INSC 91; [1973] SUPP. 1. SCR 1., basic structure docrine shall remain intact when the Parliaments power excercised.

Overview
Article 2 of the Constitution of India vests in the Parliament of India plenary power to admit new States into or constitute new States, on such terms and conditions as it deems fit. Article 2 of the Constitution, though giving plenary power to the Parliament, is not independent and is subject to the federal constitution and provisions thereof. As regards amendments, the provision has not undergone any amendments which can be said to be of material significance.
According to the Supreme Court ruling in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 INSC 111; [1994] 2 SCR 644; (1994) 3 SCC 1., the parliament's authority to amend or establish a new state is extensive, and it may amend this power through any constitutionally legitimate law.

Detailed Analysis

Article 2 provides the constitutional basis for the admission or establishment of new States in the Union and vests in the Parliament its operation. The power “on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit” is plenary in its form, but operates within the structure of the Constitution. Article 4 remain relevant for new State amendments and subsequent applicable updated in the Schedule.

  1. Legal interpretation with citation: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 INSC 111; [1994] 2 SCR 644; (1994) 3 SCC 1.
  2. Practical implications with citation: Reorganisation of States and constitutional scheme, India Code
  3. Available remedies with citation: Article 32, Constitution of India
  4. Procedural requirements with citation: Article 4, Constitution of India
  5. Other relevant points with citation: Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon, 1971 INSC 289; [1972] 2 SCR 33; (1972) 2 SCC 33.

Recent Developments

  • 31/12/1976
    The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 (42nd Amendment), which was brought into effect on 02.03.1977, did not bring any change in the Article 2 but affected the provisions which remains important for Union and State coordination and demographic changes.
  • 24/04/1973
    It was so held by the Court in Kesavananda Bharati and the judgment does not deal with the Article 2 at all, but it established the principle relevant for understanding the constitutional powers of Article 2 within the limits of the constitution, in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharat Sripadagala Var U U. v. State Of Kerala, 1973 INSC 91; [1973] SUPP. 1. SCR 1.

Key Takeaways
The provision, Article 2, has given broad legislative power to Parliament to admit a new State within the Union, while still keeping within the confines of the Constitution. The powers of admitting and establishing new States in the Union under Article 2, is closely linked with other provisions, that is Articles 1, 3 and 4, of the Constitution, that deal with the procedure of reorganisation of states.
The jurisdiction vested with the Parliament, through Article 2, empowers it to reorganize the states of India, the power, however, is subject to constitutional bounds and as stated in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union Of India, 1970 INSC 18, [1970] 3 SCR 530, discretion is constrained by Article 4's structural restrictions and the ideals inherent in the Constitution. Such power is thus an inherent legislative function in the constitutional scheme of governance, Article 2 does not grant absolute power to the Parliament, and in practice, it is always subject to constitutional constraints. Judicial decisions such as Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union Of India, 1970 INSC 18, [1970] 3 SCR 530. and the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution (1976) reinforced the power, and re-affirmed that the legislative authority to form a new State within the Union must still be exercised strictly within constitutional limits.

Article 3[2A. Sikkim to be associated with the Union.—Omitted.]

Omitted by the Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1975, s. 5 (w.e.f. 26-4-1975).]

Article 2A was added in the Constitution via the Thirty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1974, s. 2 (w.e.f. 1-3-1975) named as Sikkim to be associated with the Union.
This article was Ommited from the Constitution via the Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1975, s. 5 (w.e.f. 26-4-1975).

This article was Ommited from the Constitution via the Constitution (Thirty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1975, s. 5 (w.e.f. 26-4-1975).

State Of Sikkim A V. Surendra Prasad Sharma And Ors. Etc. Etc., 1994 INSC 162; [1994] 3 S.C.R.
Union of India v R C Poudyal, 1993 INSC 51; 1993 SCR (1) 891.

Article 3. 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:

4[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 5***, 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.]

6[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 empowers the Indian Parliament to change the boundaries of India States by forming new States, altering the boundaries of existing States, or renaming existing States. It provides for the division, union, or merger of territories, including Union territories, subject to the recommendation of the President. Importantly, when such proposals concern a State’s territory, borders or name, the relevant State Legislature must be consulted, but its opinion is not legally binding. The clause gives flexibility to meet administrative, cultural and political needs within India’s federal structure while maintaining legislative supremacy in re-organisation of territories.

Structure:
Article 3 has five clauses from (a) to (e) with a proviso and Explanantion I and Explanation II for clarity.

Amendments:

There were three Amendments implemented in Article 3 of the Constitution.

1. The proviso was added by the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955, s. 2, for the proviso (w.e.f. 24-12-1955).
2. The words and letters "specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule" omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, s. 29 and Sch. (w.e.f. 1-11-1956).
3. Two new explanations, Explanantion I and Explanation II, were inserted by the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 1966, s. 2 (w.e.f. 27-8-1966).

Case Laws

  1. State of West Bengal v. Union of India, 1962 INSC 391; [1964] 1 SCR 371. - Challenged Parliament’s power to acquire State property; Court upheld the supremacy of Parliament in territorial matters.
  2. Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay, 1959 INSC 105; [1960] 1 SCR 605 Validated consultation process with State Legislature under Article 3; held that legislative opinion is advisory, not binding.
  3. Pradeep Chaudhary v. Union of India, 2009 INSC 674; [2009] 8 SCR 12. – Reaffirmed that reorganization of States is a political question within Parliament’s domain in reference to the formation of State of Uttaranchal.
  4. Union of India v. Valluri Basavaiah Chowdhary, 1979 INSC 93; [1979] 3 SCC 324. – Clarified that Article 3 permits wide discretion to Parliament in altering boundaries and names.

Article 4. Laws made under articles 2 and 3 to provide for the amendment of the First and the Fourth Schedules and supplemental, incidental and consequential matters.

(1) Any law referred to in article 2 or article 3 shall contain such provisions for the amendment of the First Schedule and the Fourth Schedule as may be necessary to give effect to the provisions of the law and may also contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions as to representation in Parliament and in the Legislature or Legislatures of the State or States affected by such law) as Parliament may deem necessary.

(2) No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of article 368.

Article 4 sets out the procedure for changing territory under Articles 2 and 3. Any law that creates new States or alters the boundaries of existing States must amend the First Schedule, which enumerates the States and Union territories, and the Fourth Schedule, which apportions seats in the Rajya Sabha. Parliament may make incidental, consequential or supplementary provision for the alteration of parliamentary representation. Importantly, Article 4(2) makes it clear that this Act is not an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 powers. The system is therefore kept simple and the power of Parliament to reorganise territory is not undermined by the rigid amendment procedure.

This article is unchanged from begining. Then followed dependent changes to Articles 2, 2A and 3 which are not covered by the basic amendments.

  1. Union of India v. Mangal Singh, 1966 INSC 251; (1967) 2 SCR 109.
    Question: Whether laws enacted under Articles 2 and 3 read with Article 4 would be regarded as constitutional amendments under Article 368?
    Precedent : The power of Parliament to reorganize territory is a separate and independent power . These are not constitutional amendments.

  2. Union of India v. Valluri Basavaiah Chowdhary, 1979 INSC 93; [1979] 3 SCC 324.
    Question: The scope of Parliament’s power to enact incidental and supplemental acts under article 4?
    Precedent: Incidental measures (e.g., changes in representation) are permissible; legislative discretion is broad.

  3. Pradeep Chaudhary v. Union of India., 2009 INSC 674; [2009] 8 SCR 112.
    Question: Whether the changes in legislative representation under article 4 are legal ?
    Precedent: Incidental legislation on representation held constitutional.

Footnotes:

  1. Subs. by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, s. 2, for cl. (2) (w.e.f. 1-11-1956). ↩
  2. Subs. by s. 2 ibid. for sub-clause (b) (w.e.f. 1-11-1956). ↩
  3. Ins. by the Constitution (Thirty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1974, s. 2 (w.e.f. 1-3-1975). ↩
  4. Subs. by the Constitution (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1955, s. 2, for the proviso (w.e.f. 24-12-1955). ↩
  5. The words and letters "specified in Part A or Part B of the First Schedule" omitted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, s. 29 and Sch. (w.e.f. 1-11-1956). ↩
  6. Ins. by the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 1966, s. 2 (w.e.f. 27-8-1966). ↩