Arushi Gupta Name of the Institution- Penultimate Year Law Student {BBA L.L.B (Hons)} at O.P

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR LEGAL RESEARCH & ANALYSIS (ISSN 2582 – 6433)

VOLUME I ISSUE III (SEPTEMBER 2020)

Email – [email protected] Website – www.ijlra.com

56565656565651 www.ijlra.com Volume IIssue III|September 2020 ISSN: 2582-6433

DISCLAIMER

No part of this publication may be reproduced or copied in any form by any means without prior written permission of Managing Editor of IJLRA. The views expressed in this publication are purely personal opinions of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Editorial Team of IJLRA.

Though every effort has been made to ensure that the information in Volume I Issue III is accurate and appropriately cited/referenced, neither the Editorial Board nor IJLRA shall be held liable or responsible in any manner whatsever for any consequences for any action taken by anyone on the basis of information in the Journal.

1 www.ijlra.com Volume IIssue III|September 2020 ISSN: 2582-6433

EDITORIAL TEAM

EDITORS Ms. Ezhiloviya S.P. Nalsar Passout

Ms. Priya Singh West Bengal National University of Juridical Science

Mr. Ritesh Kumar Nalsar Passout

Mrs. Pooja Kothari Practicing Advocate

Dr. Shweta Dhand Assistant Professor

www.ijlra.com Volume IIssue III|September 2020 ISSN: 2582-6433

A WORD FROM THE TEAM

IJLRA:(ISSN: 2582-6433) is proud to complete its Volume I Issue III. The current issue consists of articles, short notes, case comments, legislative comments and book reviews, contributed by advocates, academicians, researchers & students from all parts of the country. Each contribution has been thoroughly examined by our editorial team to provide a filtered and quality read.

The fact that law as a subject is dynamic and ever evolving makes it imperative for lawyers, academicians, researchers, and students to stay abreast of recent developments. The same thought process has led us to develop a dedication towards providing all the contributors with a platform to express their original ideas on contemporary issues. With the same endeavour to present view on latest legal developments within and outside country we are successful in presenting diverse selection of stimulating articles.

We strive hard to stick to the core of the Journal's principles, which includes diversity and open discussion from all aspects of law while maintaining highest standards of professional integrity.

The Issue is a culmination of the efforts of several people who must be rightly acknowledged. We would like to place on record our sincere gratitude to all our contributors for their valuable work. We would also like to thank all the members of Editorial Board for their efforts in shortlisting and editing the papers to ensure that the ideas of authors are being expressed in the best possible manner; and finally the members of our technical support team for making this issue reach all our readers by way of an open access system.

We sincerely hope that the present issue will come to the expectations of its readers.

Team IJLRA

3 www.ijlra.com Vol ume IIssue III|September 2020 ISSN: 2582-6433

Name of the Author- Arushi Gupta Name of the Institution- Penultimate year law student {BBA L.L.B (Hons)} at O.P. Jindal Global University Email- [email protected] Contact information- 9953337920 Address: House no. 696, sector-14, Faridabad, Haryana, India

INDIA: AN INDESTRUCTIBLE UNION OF DESTRUCTIBLE STATES

INTRODUCTION India is referred to as an “Indestructible Union of Destructible States” which means that the Union cannot be changed or altered but amendments can be made to the state boundaries.1 This implies that the states in India do not have any sort of definiteness or guarantee with regards to their boundaries. Article 3 of the Constitution of India2 allows for the creation of new states, altering the structure of the current states, and changing the names of existing states with a simple majority in the Parliament.

Indian states have no territorial integrity, as the matter regarding the changes in the boundaries of states is always an unsettled and open issue and the entire existence of the states is questionable.3 The state of Bombay being dissolved by splitting it into two new states of Maharashtra and Gujarat is one such example.4 In contrast, the United States of America (US) is an “Indestructible union of Indestructible states” as the states in the US have territorial integrity.5 This means that the map of the US cannot be redrawn by the Parliament and the states have a statutory guarantee concerning their boundaries.6 This is owing to the fact that in India, there were neither any agreements among the states with respect to coming together and forming a federation nor did any state have the right to secede from it.7 Hence,

1 Mokbul Ali Laskar, Dynamics of Indian Federalism: A Comprehensive Historical Review 56 (Notion Press 2015). 2 INDIAN CONST., art 3. 3 Suvir Raghuvansh, Creation of New States in India, Bharati Law Review, July – September 2016 at 165. 4 Marshall Windmiller, The Politics of States Reorganization in India: The Case of Bombay, 25 Far Eastern Survey 129 (1956). 5 Laskar, supra note 1, at 80. 6 Id. 7 Susant Kumar Naik & V. Anil Kumar, Federalism and the Formation of States in India 2 (Institute for Social and Economic Change 2016).

4 www.ijlra.com Vol ume IIssue III|September 2020 ISSN: 2582-6433

the term ‘Union’ was used instead of the term ‘Federation’ in India as compared to the US being a Federation.8 Various small new states have been created by the Parliament out of the already existing states. Nagaland carved out of Assam, Jharkhand created out of Bihar, etc., are some of the examples. But the question that lies here is whether such divisions are actually beneficial for the country or is there a need to rethink about the Parliament’s unilateral power of division of states under Article 3.

IS DIVISION OF STATES A GOOD IDEA? Post-independence of India, the government was forced to create a separate state, Andhra Pradesh after violent demonstrations of Telugu speaking people in the Madras state.9 After this, the demands for the formation of new linguistic states frequently started coming to the government and they were unable to handle the situation.10 Due to this, the government constituted a State Reorganization Commission in 1953 leading to the passing of the State Reorganization Act in 1956 to look into matters relating to changes in the boundaries of states.11 The Act considered regionalism, ethnicity, and even demand for secession as valid grounds for the creation of new states apart from the division on a linguistic basis.12 This reorganization led to a lot of chaos and lawlessness in the country, developing a separatist tendency among the states.13 Violent activities quickly escalated as the demands of the public were not getting fulfilled.

Accepting the demands for the creation of new states has created more problems than proving beneficial for the country. For example, after giving in to the demand of the creation of Telangana by separating it from Andhra Pradesh, the public demanded a third state of Rayalaseema.14 This shows that for every request that is accepted, there emerges a new demand for a new state. Moreover, the division of states creates interstate border disputes leading to violence in the country.15 This can be seen in the case of Karnataka-Maharashtra

8 Id. 9 Windmiller, supra note 4, at 129. 10 Id. 11 Suman Sharma, State Boundary Changes in India: Constitutional Provisions and Consequences, 44-45 (Deep & Deep Publications 1995). 12 Id, at 115. 13 Satish Kumar Arora, The Reorganization of the Indian States, 25 Far Eastern Survey 30 (1956). 14 A. Srinivasa Rao, After Telangana, Movement for Rayalaseema State Gathers Steam, India Today, August 27, 2012. 15 Sharma, supra note 11, at 115.

5 www.ijlra.com Vol ume IIssue III|September 2020 ISSN: 2582-6433

border dispute wherein post-division, Belgaum, a Marathi speaking village was joined with Karnataka.16 Ever since that, the Parliament has been unable to solve such disputes properly. The major impact of the division of states on the basis of language, religion, culture, etc., is on the national integrity of the country.17 The illustrations of demands of Telangana in Andhra, Kamtapur in West Bengal, and Vidarbha in Maharashtra show that people give more importance to regional and lingual identity over Union’s identity as a whole.18 With so much diversity in the country, division on such basis will lead to hatred among people and drastically go against Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s idea of “One Nation”.

Also, smaller states become highly economically dependent upon the government to meet their annual expenditures due to their lack of access to human and natural resources.19 For instance, post-division, Telangana became a landlocked state by losing out on major ports, coastline, golden quadrilateral, and major railway freight corridors.20 Additionally, eight states in the northeast were dependent upon the government to meet most of their annual expenditures and hence, were regarded as special category states.21 This is unfair to larger states like Bihar which are in reality very poor as they are unable to receive the same benefits from the government because of their size.22

Furthermore, the creation of smaller states does not guarantee a better social or economic life.23 This can be seen in the case of states like Uttrakhand, Jharkhand, and Chhattisgarh which were the first states to be separated more on the basis of economic backwardness and discrimination than on a linguistic or religious basis.24 However, these states have experienced huge displacement of tribal people in recent times and are far behind in human development despite having abundant natural resources.25

Additionally, the validation of the parent state is not given any importance. Under Article 3, the State legislatures have a right to express their views and opinions on the division of the

16 Maharashtra-Karnataka Belgaum tension flares again: How did it start, where does it stand?, Indian Express, December 30, 2019. 17 Sidharth Sharma, Creation of New States: Need for Constitutional Parameters, 38 Economic and Political Weekly 3973 (2003). 18 Id. 19Ashutosh Kumar, Exploring the Demand for New States, 45 Economic and Political Weekly 15-18 (2010). 20 V Kamalakara Rao, No Coast for Landlocked Telangana after Bifurcation. TOI, August 4, 2014. 21 Kumar, supra note 19, at 17. 22 Id. 23 Ajay Gudavarthy, Small States, Big Problems, The Hindu, March 12, 2014. 24 Mahendra Prasad Singh, Reorganisation of States in India, 43 Economic and Political Weekly 72 (2008). 25 Id.

6 www.ijlra.com Vol ume IIssue III|September 2020 ISSN: 2582-6433

states, however, the final decision remains with the Parliament.26 There is no provision mandating the Parliament to accept or to act upon the State legislature’s views.27 This is highly misused by the parties in power, as they have unopposed authority to redraw the political map of the country for their political gains.28 For instance, Berubari was transferred to Pakistan from West Bengal despite the State legislature’s displeasure, Nagaland and Meghalaya were created out of Assam despite their opposition.29

Moreover, they do not have to refer the matter back to the parent State legislature even if substantial changes in the bill have been made by the Parliament. The court in Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay30, held that if the State legislature fails to express its views on the division of states in the prescribed period of time, then the President has full right to go ahead with his decision without even hearing their views. This has been clearly done to give full powers to the Parliament to act according to their own accords even if the State legislature is unhappy about it.

Linguisticism and regionalism are used as powerful weapons by the political parties.31 They use language and region in order to serve their needs and increase their vote bank as they know that people react well to such issues.32 Also, the creation of new states allows for more allocation of funds to these political leaders from the central government. Hence, the prevalent corruption and bureaucracy in the Indian political system give rise to an opportunity to obtain more money for the parties.

However, despite all the aforementioned reasons against the division of states, reorganization of states is feasible when certain requirements are met such as administrative convenience, economic viability, similarity in the development needs of a sub-region, cultural-linguistic affinity, etc.33 So, the division of a state like Uttar Pradesh can prove to be beneficial for the country as the population size of the state is very large. So, dividing it into smaller parts would help in better governance, more targeted infrastructural and educational developments, improve administrative efficiency, and help in the formation of better social schemes for the

26 Raghuvansh, supra note 3. 27 Id. 28 Sharma, supra note 11, at 115. 29 Laskar, supra note 1, at 81. 30 Babulal Parate v State of Bombay, AIR 1960 51. 31 Sharma, supra note 11, at 115. 32 Id. 33 Akhtar Majeed, The Changing Politics of States' Reorganization, 33 Publius 85 (2003).

7 www.ijlra.com Vol ume IIssue III|September 2020 ISSN: 2582-6433

states. But it is not advisable for states with immense cultural unity like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, etc., as dividing them would create chaos in the country.

CONCLUSION The legislative intent behind Article 3 was to ensure the unification of the country but instead, it has been used to fulfill personal aspirations. Creation of new states creates turmoil and hatred in the country leading to public conflicts. Therefore, there is an urgent need to lay down certain constitutional parameters within which only the Parliament should be allowed to make the decision regarding the change in the boundaries of states. This will remove any ambiguity from the decision-making powers of the Parliament and hold them accountable for their decisions. The Parliament should avoid dividing the states on religious or linguistic basis because if any state follows only one culture or religion, then it will destroy the whole notion of diversity of our country. The State legislature must also have a right to pass a bill for the reorganization of states as they must be able to argue for or against it. A second state reorganization commission must also be set up to investigate into such division matters. It should also be ensured that the new states created are economically viable and have sufficient resources to function as an autonomous state. Hence, alteration of states is a very sensitive and complex matter, and therefore should only be used as a last resort after going through a series of negotiations with the State legislature.