Article 4 of the Constitution of India works in tandem with Article 2 and Article 3. While Articles 2 and 3 empower Parliament to admit new states, alter boundaries, or change names of existing states, Article 4 provides the essential legislative power to make consequential amendments to the First Schedule (names of States and Union Territories) and the Fourth Schedule (allocation of seats in Rajya Sabha). It also validates any supplementary, incidental, or consequential provisions.
Notably, such laws are not deemed amendments under Article 368, meaning they can be passed by a simple majority in Parliament. This unique feature ensures smoother reorganisation of states without the cumbersome process of constitutional amendment under Article 368.
Laws under Article 4 are passed like ordinary legislation (simple majority), not requiring special majority under Article 368, ensuring administrative flexibility.
Directly empowers Parliament to amend the First & Fourth Schedules without a separate constitutional amendment bill.
Includes authority to alter representation in Parliament, allocate seats, and handle assets/liabilities during state reorganisation.
Article 4 explicitly clarifies that amendments to Schedules under this Article are NOT considered amendments for the purpose of Article 368.
This arrangement upholds the flexible federal structure of India, enabling the central government to respond to linguistic, cultural, and administrative demands without constant recourse to the complex amendment process.
Article 2 deals with admission or establishment of new states. Article 3 allows Parliament to form new states, alter boundaries, merge territories, etc. However, Article 4 is the enabling clause that makes these changes legally enforceable by automatically modifying the Schedules and adding necessary supplementary rules. Without Article 4, every minor boundary change would require a constitutional amendment altering the First Schedule separately.
| Event / Case | Significance w.r.t Article 4 |
|---|---|
| States Reorganisation Act, 1956 | First major use — reorganisation of states on linguistic basis, amendment of First Schedule via simple majority. |
| Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 | Creation of Maharashtra & Gujarat — Article 4 facilitated alteration of Schedules seamlessly. |
| In Re: Berubari Union case (1960) | Though primarily about cession of territory, SC highlighted that Article 3 & 4 provide plenary power for boundary alterations and Schedule amendments without Article 368. |
| Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (2017) | Reaffirmed that parliamentary power under Article 3 read with Article 4 is broad, though subject to checks like presidential reference and state views. |
These landmark reorganizations demonstrate how Article 4 acts as the constitutional machinery that allows dynamic restructuring of India’s federal map while maintaining legislative integrity.
First Schedule lists all States and Union Territories of India. Any change in state boundaries, name, or creation of a new UT directly modifies this Schedule via Article 4. Fourth Schedule allocates seats to each State (and UT with legislature) in the Rajya Sabha (Council of States). Article 4 empowers Parliament to recalibrate these seats after reorganization to preserve federal balance in the upper house.
Article 4(2) contains a non-obstante clause: "No such law as aforesaid shall be deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of article 368." This crucial provision has been praised by constitutional experts for ensuring that state reorganizations do not get entangled in the rigors of the special majority procedure. However, critics argue it reduces judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) clarified that while Article 4 permits schedule modifications, it cannot be used to damage the basic structure of the Constitution. So far, state reorganizations under Articles 3 and 4 have been held constitutionally valid.
Article 4 frequently appears in competitive examinations, constitutional law essays, and debates on centre-state relations. Its study highlights the pragmatic vision of the Constituent Assembly: enabling territorial flexibility while preserving the supremacy of Parliament in matters of national integration. Moreover, the distinction between 'ordinary legislative power' and 'constituent power' under Article 368 is central to understanding Indian federalism.
Yes, it provides Parliament with the power to amend Schedules I and IV through ordinary legislation, without invoking Article 368. However, it does not permit amendments to other parts of the Constitution.
Under Article 3, before introducing a bill affecting state boundaries, the President must refer it to the concerned state legislature for its views within a specified period. However, the view is not binding, and Article 4 complements this by allowing consequential schedule amendments.
Article 4 read with the Fourth Schedule ensures that the reallocation of Rajya Sabha seats is based on proportional representation, but Parliament can alter the allocation according to the law passed. This has always been done following constitutional principles and basic structure.
It covers distribution of assets, liabilities, high court jurisdiction, service conditions, and even representation in Parliament. This ensures seamless transition after state reorganisation.
For authentic resources, consult the official Constitution of India (Bare Act), Introduction to the Constitution of India by D.D. Basu, and Supreme Court reports on state reorganization. Article 4 continues to be relevant with ongoing demands for new states like Vidarbha, Bodoland, etc. The constitutional mechanism under Articles 3 & 4 provides a democratic, parliamentary route to redraw boundaries.