STATE FORMATION

Introduction (Article 3)

1. Art 3
1. deals with state reorganisation boundaries, changing boundaries
2. can be introduced in parliament only, after President's approval
1. this means that by govt only and not by private member
3. state have no say
4. President first consults state before introduction of Bill
5. President may give it to state legislature for state's views but those are not binding
2. not a non-federal feature
3. Ambedkar: India is indestructible union of destructible states
4. Louis Tillin: book- Remapping India
1. internal territorial map of India is still not settled
5. state formation by colonial officials, not natural
6. homogenisation of some sort required for administration
1. flexible provision for formation of state required
7. had art 3 not been there, India would not have survived its dangerous  decades

Smaller states

1. demand for creation of new states on regular basis
2. lack of consensus among scholars
3. first school: favour of smaller states
1. Ramchandra Guha, Bibek Debroy, Advani, Mayawati
2. good governance logic
3. inclusive growth
4. rationalisation between strength of administration and population
5. Bibek Debroy: there should be at least 50 states in India
4. second school: opposition to smaller states
1. Prof. MP Singh, Sudha Pai
2. no relation between size and governance. eg- Tamil Nadu vs Jharkhand
3. unnecessary expenditure
4. more states means more inter-state disputes
5. politically unstable due to defections
6. smaller states will depend on grants of union, same as union territory
7. some demands may have strategic concerns like Gorkhaland which may allow Nepal to allege that india has captured its territory
8. introduction of 73rd 74th amendment reduces logic of smaller states
9. still demand can be considered when there is genuine aspiration of people, not just based on political reasons.