Union and Its Territory (Articles 1-4): Union of States, Reorganisation & Berubari (UPSC Polity)

Article 1 — India as a 'Union of States'

🎯 Exam priority: Foundational. Short but exam-favourite — why India is a "Union of States" not a "Federation", the difference between Article 2 and Article 3, the fact that Parliament can redraw states by a simple majority (not the Article 368 amendment route — linked to the 2025 Prelims question on ratification), and the Berubari rule that ceding territory needs an amendment. Learn Articles 1 to 4 cleanly.

Articles 1 to 4, in Part I of the Constitution, deal with the Union and its territory — the name of the country, the kind of polity, and how its internal map can be changed.

Article 1 — India as a 'Union of States'

• Article 1 describes "India, that is Bharat, as a Union of States" — deliberately a "Union" not a "Federation". Dr B.R. Ambedkar gave two reasons: (i) the Indian federation is not the result of an agreement among the states (unlike the American one); and (ii) the states have no right to secede. The Union is indestructible — one integral whole, divided into states only for administrative convenience.

• The "Territory of India" has three categories: (1) territories of the States; (2) the Union Territories; and (3) territories that may be acquired by the Government of India. At present there are 28 States and 8 Union Territories (listed in the First Schedule). Note: "Territory of India" is wider than "Union of India" — the Union of India includes only the States (the members of the federal system), while the Territory of India also covers UTs and acquired territories.

• Integration of the princely states: at independence there were about 552 princely states; 549 acceded to India (largely through Sardar Patel and V.P. Menon and the Instrument of Accession). The three hold-outs were integrated separately — Junagarh by referendum, Hyderabad by police action (Operation Polo) and Kashmir by the Instrument of Accession.

Acquiring Territory, and Article 2 vs Article 3

India can also grow — and the Constitution gives Parliament two different tools, often confused in the exam.

Acquiring Territory, and Article 2 vs Article 3

• India may acquire foreign territory by the modes recognised in international law — cession (by treaty, purchase, gift, lease or plebiscite), occupation, or conquest/subjugation. It has done so with Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Goa, Daman and Diu, Puducherry and Sikkim.

• Article 2 empowers Parliament to "admit into, or establish, new States" that are NOT part of the Union of India (i.e., external — bringing in a territory like Sikkim). Article 3, by contrast, deals with the internal re-arrangement of the existing States of the Union. The clean distinction: Article 2 = new states from outside; Article 3 = re-organising states already inside.

Article 3 — Reorganising the Existing States

Article 3 is the one that has redrawn India's map a dozen times — and it does so with surprisingly little say for the states.

Article 3 — Reorganising the Existing States

• Article 3 authorises Parliament to: (1) form a new State (by separating territory, uniting states/parts, or adding territory); (2) increase or diminish the area of any State; (3) alter the boundaries of any State; and (4) alter the name of any State.

• Two conditions apply: (i) a bill for these changes can be introduced only on the prior recommendation of the President; and (ii) the President must refer the bill to the concerned State Legislature for its views — but those views are NOT binding on Parliament (and for a Union Territory, no such reference is needed).

• So Parliament can form new states or alter the areas, boundaries or names of existing states WITHOUT their consent. This is why India is called an "indestructible Union of destructible States" — the Union can redraw the states at will — in contrast to the USA, "an indestructible Union of indestructible States", where state boundaries cannot be changed without the states' consent.

Article 4 — a Simple-Majority Power, and Reorganisation

A common exam trap: changing the map of India is NOT a constitutional amendment.

Article 4 — a Simple-Majority Power, and the Story of Reorganisation

• Article 4 declares that laws made under Articles 2 and 3 are NOT to be treated as amendments under Article 368. They can therefore be passed by a simple majority and the ordinary legislative process — no special majority, no ratification by states. (This is the distinction the 2025 Prelims tested against Article 368's special-plus-state-ratification route.)

• The first linguistic state: agitation for a Telugu-speaking state, and the death of Potti Sriramulu after a 56-day hunger strike, forced the creation of Andhra (the first linguistic state) in October 1953. This led to the Fazl Ali Commission (States Reorganisation Commission, 1953) — a three-member body of Fazl Ali, K.M. Panikkar and H.N. Kunzru, which reported in 1955 and (while rejecting "one language–one state" as the sole basis) produced the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, reorganising India largely on a linguistic basis into 14 States and 6 Union Territories.

• New states have since been carved out — Telangana (2014) being the most recent created. Sikkim's path is a Prelims favourite: it became an "associate state" by the 35th Amendment (1974) and then the 22nd full state by the 36th Amendment (1975). Most recently, the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 abrogated Article 370's special status and split the state into two Union Territories, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

Cession of Territory, Berubari & Why This Matters

One sharp limit remains on Parliament's territorial power — and it is a favourite Prelims point.

Cession of Territory, Berubari & Why This Matters

• Does Article 3's power to "diminish the area of a State" let Parliament cede Indian territory to a foreign country? In the Berubari Union case (1960), the Supreme Court held NO — ceding territory to a foreign state is not covered by Article 3 and requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368. Accordingly, the transfer of Berubari to Pakistan needed the 9th Constitutional Amendment Act (1960); and the India–Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement was given effect by the 100th Amendment (2015). (However, settling a boundary dispute can be done by the executive, without an amendment.)

• Why this matters for UPSC: Prelims tests "Union of States", Article 2 vs Article 3, the Art 3 procedure (President's recommendation, non-binding state views), the simple-majority point (Art 4 vs Art 368), and the Berubari cession rule. Tie each Article to its exact power and its limit — that precision is where the marks are.

Further Reading

• Standard NCERT-level texts and reference books on modern Indian history (any UPSC reading list).

Test Yourself: Practice Questions & PYQs

Test yourself on Articles 1 to 4 — Union of States, Article 2 vs Article 3, the reorganisation procedure, Article 4's simple-majority rule and the Berubari cession ruling. Attempt each before revealing the answer.

Practice Questions

Q1. Article 1 of the Constitution describes India as a:

• (a) Federation of States

• (b) Confederation of States

• (c) Quasi-federal State

• (d) Union of States

Q2. Which Article empowers Parliament to admit or establish NEW states that are not already part of the Union?

• (a) Article 1

• (b) Article 3

• (c) Article 2

• (d) Article 4

Q3. Under Article 3, the views of the State Legislature on a bill to alter its area or name are:

• (a) binding and must be accepted by Parliament

• (b) not required to be sought at all

• (c) sought but NOT binding on Parliament

• (d) decided by the Supreme Court

Q4. India is described as an 'indestructible Union of destructible States' because:

• (a) Parliament can alter states' areas and names without their consent

• (b) states can redraw their own boundaries

• (c) states can secede from the Union

• (d) the Union itself can be dissolved

Q5. A law made under Article 3 to form a new state requires, for its passage:

• (a) a referendum in the affected state

• (b) ratification by half the state legislatures

• (c) a simple majority in Parliament

• (d) a special majority under Article 368

Q6. The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 reorganised the states mainly on the basis of:

• (a) religion

• (b) language

• (c) river basins

• (d) administrative convenience alone

Q7. In the Berubari Union case (1960), the Supreme Court held that ceding Indian territory to a foreign country:

• (a) requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368

• (b) is never permissible

• (c) can be done by the executive alone

• (d) can be done by Parliament under Article 3

Q8. The expression 'Territory of India' is wider than 'Union of India' because it ALSO includes:

• (a) foreign embassies in India

• (b) the territorial waters only

• (c) Union Territories and acquired territories

• (d) only the States

Q9. The first state to be created on a linguistic basis (1953) was:

• (a) Gujarat

• (b) Andhra

• (c) Maharashtra

• (d) Telangana

Q10. The States Reorganisation Commission (1953) was a three-member body headed by Fazl Ali, with:

• (a) B.R. Ambedkar and K.M. Munshi

• (b) K.M. Panikkar and H.N. Kunzru

• (c) Nehru and Rajendra Prasad

• (d) Sardar Patel and V.P. Menon

Q11. Sikkim was made a full-fledged (22nd) state of the Indian Union by which amendment?

• (a) 7th Amendment (1956)

• (b) 36th Amendment (1975)

• (c) 35th Amendment (1974)

• (d) 42nd Amendment (1976)

Mains Practice Questions

Use these to frame full-length answers. You don't have to answer one exactly — they show the angles UPSC tests, so let them guide which points you cover.

• Why does Article 1 describe India as a 'Union of States' rather than a 'Federation of States'? Discuss with Ambedkar's reasoning.

• Distinguish between Article 2 and Article 3, and explain the procedure and limits of Parliament's power to reorganise states.

• 'India is an indestructible Union of destructible States.' Examine in the light of Articles 3 and 4 and the 2019 reorganisation of Jammu & Kashmir.

• Discuss the constitutional position on the cession of Indian territory to a foreign country, with reference to the Berubari case.