Article 4 of Indian Constitution: Provisions on Constitutional Amendments

The Indian Constitution, celebrated for its adaptability, incorporates provisions that allow the country’s federal structure to evolve alongside changing socio-political needs. Among these, Article 4 of the Indian Constitution holds distinctive importance. Tucked within Part I of the Constitution, Article 4 clarifies the authority and process for making changes to the territorial boundaries of states, as well as the formation of new states. Yet, its deeper impact is in how it interacts with the provisions on constitutional amendments, setting Article 4 apart from the formal amendment mechanisms specified under Article 368.

Grasping the full scope of Article 4 provides critical insight into how India balances constitutional rigidity with necessary flexibility—especially when it comes to redrawing state boundaries or creating new states to address regional aspirations.

The Text and Meaning of Article 4

Article 4 empowers Parliament to implement changes envisaged under Articles 2 and 3, which deal with the admission/establishment of new states and alteration of areas, boundaries, or names of existing states. Significantly, Article 4(2) stipulates that a law enacted for such changes is not to be considered a constitutional amendment under Article 368, even if it amends or supplements Schedule I (states and territories) or Schedule IV (Rajya Sabha seat allocation).

This can be concisely summarized:

• Article 4(1): Parliament can make supplemental, incidental, and consequential provisions as it deems necessary for admitting new states or altering boundaries.
• Article 4(2): Such laws do not constitute constitutional amendments—avoiding the more rigorous process that Article 368 mandates.

This feature allows Parliament a degree of agility when reconfiguring India’s internal political geography, bypassing the need for a special majority and state ratification required for formal constitutional amendments.

The Legal Rationale

The framers of the Constitution recognized that the continual development and administrative needs of a vast country like India would, at times, require timely reconfiguration of state boundaries. Insisting on a full constitutional amendment process for each change would risk paralyzing needed reforms. This foresight is evident in debates of the Constituent Assembly, where members stressed practicality and the need to reflect “the living will of the people.”

“Article 4 stands as a testament to the vision that the Constitution must enable administrative flexibility while firmly protecting the federal spirit. It ensures that responses to regional demands are not bogged down by rigid procedural hurdles.”

— Dr. Rajeev Mehra, Constitutional Law Scholar

Historical Usage and Judicial Interpretation

Parliament has extensively utilized Article 4 to enact laws for creating new states and redrawing boundaries, reflecting its operational importance. Notable examples include the formation of states such as:

• Andhra Pradesh (1953) and its bifurcation (Telangana, 2014)
• Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Jharkhand (all in 2000)
• Sikkim’s merger (1975)

Each of these required supplemental provisions impacting constitutional schedules and, at times, legal frameworks for administration, law-and-order, and representation without invoking Article 368.

Key Judicial Observations

The Supreme Court of India has consistently upheld the special status of Article 4. In the landmark case Mangal Singh v. Union of India (1966), the Court clarified that changes to the First or Fourth Schedules as a consequence of state reorganization did not amount to a constitutional amendment. This precedent ensures Parliament’s primacy in managing federal realignments without excessive procedural roadblocks.

Implications for Federal Structure

While Article 4 grants Parliament substantial powers, it has also prompted concerns regarding adequate state consultation. Over the years, debates have arisen over whether states’ views are mere recommendations or more binding. The constitutional position is clear: while the President must refer any such bill to the concerned state legislature for its views, Parliament is not obliged to act in accordance with state recommendations.

Article 4 Versus Article 368: Distinguishing Amendment Mechanisms

A crucial aspect of Article 4 is its distinction from Article 368, which prescribes the formal process for constitutional amendments. Article 368 requires adherence to:

• Special majority thresholds in both houses of Parliament
• In certain cases, ratification by at least half of the states

Article 4, on the other hand, explicitly states that a law made under Articles 2 or 3, even if it “amends or supplements” constitutional schedules, will not be seen as an amendment for the purposes of Article 368.

Why This Distinction Matters

This distinction is pivotal for India’s political agility. Without Article 4, even minor territorial adjustments or changes in seat allocations would demand the same level of consensus required for foundational changes like altering fundamental rights or the basic structure. Such a route would risk legislative paralysis on issues requiring prompt action.

On the other hand, the exemption has periodically been criticized for centralizing power with Parliament, raising questions about the balance between federal flexibility and states’ rights.

Contemporary Relevance: Article 4 in Modern India

India’s dynamic federal landscape periodically revives debates around state reorganization. Demands for new states—whether based on ethnicity, language, economic disparities, or administrative efficiency—continue to shape political discourse. Article 4 remains the primary constitutional lever for managing these demands.

Some recent contexts where Article 4’s framework shapes policymaking include:

• Continuing agitations for smaller states in the northeast (e.g., the call for Gorkhaland),
• Debates over regional autonomy within existing states,
• Demands for redrawing boundaries to reflect changing data from population censuses or administrative reorganization.

Balancing Flexibility and Stability

In practice, the power granted by Article 4 is not exercised unilaterally; political consensus remains essential. Successive governments have typically established commissions or conducted extensive consultations before introducing reorganization bills, even if not strictly mandated by the Constitution.

Article 4’s durability demonstrates how constitutional architecture can accommodate ongoing change without undermining the integrity or predictability of governance.

Conclusion: Article 4’s Enduring Significance

Article 4 of the Indian Constitution exemplifies the intent to marry flexibility with the rule of law. By exempting laws regarding admission or alteration of states and relevant Schedules from the constitutional amendment process, Article 4 enables Parliament to respond effectively to the evolving landscape of a vast, multicultural country. Yet, this flexibility is balanced by institutional checks—such as mandatory consultation with the affected states—even if not binding.

For policymakers, scholars, and citizens, understanding Article 4 is essential for appreciating both the powers and limits of the Indian federal system. As India’s political map continues to evolve, the spirit behind Article 4 will remain critical for maintaining unity while accommodating diversity.

---

FAQs

What is Article 4 of the Indian Constitution?

Article 4 allows Parliament to make laws regarding the admission of new states, alteration of boundaries, and related provisions without following the formal constitutional amendment process outlined in Article 368.

How does Article 4 differ from Article 368?

Article 4 provides a simpler mechanism for certain changes, allowing amendments to Schedules I and IV relating to states and Rajya Sabha representation, without requiring a special majority or state ratification, unlike Article 368.

Has Article 4 been used for creating new states in India?

Yes, Parliament has invoked Article 4 during the creation of states like Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Jharkhand, streamlining administrative changes without formal constitutional amendments.

Do states have to consent to changes made under Article 4?

States are consulted via a reference to their legislatures, but parliamentary approval does not require state consent; their views are advisory, not binding.

Can Article 4 be used to amend fundamental rights?

No, Article 4 is limited to changes concerning the organizational structure of states and does not extend to core constitutional rights or other fundamental provisions.

Why is Article 4 important for Indian federalism?

Article 4 ensures that the Indian Union can adapt its federal structure in response to changing needs, balancing centralized authority with consultative mechanisms to manage a diverse nation.