Introduction
Article 3 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Union Parliament to form new States and alter the areas, boundaries, or names of existing States. Specifically, Article 3(e) provides the constitutional mechanism for altering the name of any State, underscoring India's characterisation as an 'indestructible Union of destructible units'.
Constitutional Procedure under Article 3
The procedure for altering the name of an existing State follows a distinct constitutional sequence laid down in the proviso to Article 3, read alongside Article 4:
- Presidential Recommendation: A Bill for altering the name of a State can be introduced in either House of Parliament only on the prior recommendation of the President.
- Mandatory Reference to State Legislature: Before making the recommendation, the President must refer the Bill to the Legislature of the affected State for expressing its views within a specified period or within an extended timeframe granted by the President.
- Consultative and Non-Binding Opinion: The opinion expressed by the State Legislature is purely advisory. The Supreme Court in Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay (1959) ruled that Parliament is not legally bound by the views of the State Legislature, nor is fresh reference required if subsequent amendments are introduced in Parliament.
- Passage by Simple Majority: Under Article 4(2), laws enacted under Article 3 do not constitute constitutional amendments under Article 368. Consequently, Parliament passes the Bill by a simple majority, followed by Presidential assent, which consequentially amends the First and Fourth Schedules.
Balance of Power: Union Parliament versus State Legislatures
The renaming of Kerala to 'Keralam' highlights the interplay between legal supremacy and democratic federal conventions:
- Asymmetrical Unitary Bias: Textually, the procedure manifests Union supremacy. States lack territorial or nominal inviolability, and unlike federal systems like the United States, Indian States do not possess veto power over their nomenclature or territorial boundaries.
- Initiative and Sub-National Aspiration: In practice, State renaming often originates at the grassroots. In June 2024, the Kerala Legislative Assembly unanimously passed a resolution urging the Union Government to amend the First Schedule and rename the State to 'Keralam' to align official nomenclature with regional linguistic and cultural heritage across all languages.
- Cooperative Federalism in Convention: While Parliament legally possesses plenary authority to act unilaterally, established constitutional convention dictates that the Union acts upon consensus and state resolutions. Renaming requests (such as Madras to Tamil Nadu in 1969, or Orissa to Odisha in 2011) demonstrate that nominal changes operate through cooperative accommodation rather than central coercion.
Conclusion
While the textual architecture of Article 3 centralises authority in the Union Parliament to preserve national integration, healthy constitutional conventions bridge this asymmetry. The renaming of Kerala demonstrates that sub-national linguistic and cultural identities are accommodated through collaborative federal practices, balancing Union paramountcy with democratic federalism.