Which of the following statements with regard to the creation of a new state or alteration of boundaries of states is/are correct ? 1. An amendment has to be moved in the Parliament under Article 368 of the Constitution of India. 2. Ratification by one half of the states is necessary after the amendment is made by the Parliament. 3. The legislation can be passed by a simple majority of both Houses of Parliament. Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- A.1 and 3 only
- B.2 only
- C.3 only
- D.2 and 3 only
Correct answer
Explanation
The correct answer is C, 3 only. A new state is created, or a state's boundaries changed, by an ordinary law of Parliament under Article 3, passed by a simple majority.
Article 3 lets Parliament form a new state, change the area, boundaries or name of any state. The bill can be introduced only on the President's recommendation, and the President must first refer it to the legislature of the state concerned for its views within a set time, but Parliament is not bound by those views. Article 4 says such a law is not an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368, even though it changes the First and Fourth Schedules. That is how states such as Telangana (2014) were created.
A is wrong because no Article 368 amendment is needed. B is wrong because ratification by half the states applies only to certain federal amendments under Article 368, not to an Article 3 law. D is wrong because it includes statement 2.
Exam tip: New states = Article 3, simple majority, President's recommendation, state's views not binding; Article 4 says it is not an Article 368 amendment.
Practice Questions
View allIn which one of the following States has the President's Rule been imposed most number of times?
- A.Bihar
- B.Karnataka
- C.Manipur
- D.Punjab
Show answer
Manipur has been placed under President's Rule more often than any other state, more than ten times since 1967.
Read the full explanation →The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression. But the freedom is subject to certain reasonable restrictions imposed by the State. These restrictions may relate to which of the following ?
1. Defamation
2. Decency or morality
3. Incitement to an offence
Select the correct answer using the code given below :
- A.1 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show answer
All three are grounds listed in Article 19(2) on which the State may place reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.
Read the full explanation →Which one of the following is not a Constitutional Commission of India?
- A.The National Commission for Scheduled Castes
- B.The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes
- C.The National Commission for Backward Classes
- D.The National Commission for Women
Show answer
It was set up in 1992 under the National Commission for Women Act, 1990, so it is a statutory body, not a constitutional one.
Read the full explanation →Which statement about the doctrine of eclipse is correct?
- A.It applies equally to pre-Constitution and post-Constitution laws that violate Fundamental Rights
- B.It applies to pre-Constitution laws, which remain dormant and may revive if the constitutional bar is removed
- C.It permits a court to strike down only the offending part of a statute
- D.It allows a citizen to give up a Fundamental Right voluntarily
Show answer
Article 13(1) makes a pre-Constitution law void only to the extent of its inconsistency with the Fundamental Rights, so the Supreme Court in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras, 1955, held that such a law is not erased but merely eclipsed, staying unenforceable until the shadow is lifted, after which it revives.
Read the full explanation →The doctrine of prospective overruling was applied for the first time in India in which case?
- A.I. C. Golaknath versus State of Punjab, 1967
- B.Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India, 1978
- C.Indira Sawhney versus Union of India, 1992
- D.S. R. Bommai versus Union of India, 1994
Show answer
An eleven judge bench held by six to five that Parliament cannot abridge Fundamental Rights by amendment, but the Court did not want to unsettle the land reform amendments already acted upon, so it declared that its ruling would operate only for the future.
Read the full explanation →