India’s constitutional framework is designed to balance continuity and change—a living document robust enough to anchor democracy, yet adaptable to generations of social and political shifts. Amidst the pivotal provisions guiding this evolution, Article 4 of the Indian Constitution stands out for its nuanced approach to constitutional amendments, particularly regarding the reorganization of states and adjustments of boundaries. Many overlook its technical significance, yet its influence is woven into the history of India’s formation and reshaping since independence.
Article 4 is nestled within Part I of the Constitution, under the section dealing with changes to state boundaries and the creation of new states. The precise text of Article 4 states:
This wording signals a clear distinction between certain structural changes and broader constitutional amendments demanding wider consensus.
“Article 4 is among those silent workhorses of our constitutional machinery—more powerful in shaping the nation’s physical and legal contours than many realize.”
— Dr. Madhav Khosla, Constitutional Scholar
A standard constitutional amendment under Article 368 requires a special majority in Parliament, and sometimes, ratification by half or more of the states. Article 4, in contrast, introduces a faster, more flexible route for incorporating changes prompted by state reorganization.
This flexibility was crucial post-independence, as the country dealt with the complex legacy of princely states, linguistic movements, and diverse regional identities. By design, it eliminated the need for complex formal amendment procedures each time a state’s boundary shifted or a new entity arose, promoting administrative efficiency and political pragmatism.
But not all amendments pass through this route. Only those necessarily “supplemental, incidental or consequential” to state formation or border alteration are covered.
Notably, Article 4 does not permit Parliament to use state reorganization laws to alter basic tenets of the Constitution. Fundamental rights, the structure of government, or the federal balance cannot be retooled through this shortcut.
Indian jurisprudence—especially judgments from the Supreme Court—has made it clear that Article 4’s exceptions are pragmatic tools, not loopholes to sidestep deeper constitutional commitments.
The most telling demonstration of Article 4’s importance is the States Reorganisation Act of 1956. The demand for linguistic states was cresting, marked by popular agitations and the martyrdom of Potti Sreeramulu in the movement for a Telugu-speaking Andhra State. Article 4 allowed Parliament to pass the necessary laws modifying state boundaries, updating the First Schedule, allocating Council of States seats, and enabling new administrative arrangements—all without invoking the arduous Article 368 amendment process.
The constitutional machinery thus responded nimbly to broad social currents, helping stabilize Indian federalism.
India’s map has not remained static. From the creation of newer states like Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, and Jharkhand in 2000 to the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in 2014, Article 4’s provisions have provided legal clarity and an efficient process. Each time, the procedural road map included:
The process ensured that even contentious transformations (like the delimitation of Jammu and Kashmir’s boundaries) were managed within clear legal norms.
The Supreme Court has ruled in several landmark cases—such as Mangal Singh v. Union of India (1966) and Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay (1960)—that laws enacted under Article 3, read with Article 4, are not to be treated as constitutional amendments in the sense of Article 368. This distinction protects the agility of the reorganization process, while preventing misuse.
Judges have emphasized the doctrine of “incidental and consequential” changes, rejecting any broad or substantive constitutional revisions through this indirect route. Any overreach—such as altering the federal structure or fundamental rights—would fall outside Article 4’s ambit and require the full amendment process.
Parliament relies on committee scrutiny and transparent debate even for Article 4 bills, underscoring a commitment to democratic oversight. Still, the procedural bar is deliberately lower to encourage responsive governance.
A recurring theme is the balance between flexibility and constitutional safeguards. Critics have warned that, in the wrong hands, the power conferred by Article 4 could theoretically erode state autonomy or democratic participation. Supporters counter that federal relations in a dynamic nation demand precisely such tools.
In practice, while Article 4 facilitates expedient legal changes, Parliament’s reputation and public accountability act as powerful counterweights. There is no evidence in the historical record of Article 4 being used to bypass major constitutional values.
Article 4 of the Indian Constitution embodies the pragmatism required for governing a vast, ever-changing nation. By distinguishing specific forms of administrative and territorial adjustment—making them procedurally simpler—it preserves the integrity of constitutional fundamentals while ensuring adaptability. Historical experience suggests Article 4 has served as a carefully calibrated instrument, not a constitutional shortcut.
As India continues to evolve, Article 4 offers a vital mechanism for responding to geographic, demographic, and political shifts, all while upholding the rule of law. Policymakers and citizens alike benefit from an understanding of this article’s unique import in India’s constitutional landscape.
Article 4 lays out the process for making supplemental, incidental, or consequential changes to the Constitution—specifically to the First and Fourth Schedules—when Parliament enacts laws under Articles 2 or 3, mainly concerning state creation or boundary changes.
No. Article 4 explicitly states that such laws, though they may alter certain schedules of the Constitution, are not regarded as amendments under Article 368 and thus do not need a special majority or state ratifications.
No. Article 4 only permits changes that are necessary as a result of laws under Articles 2 and 3. It cannot be used for substantive updates to the Constitution’s basic structure or core principles; those still require the formal amendment process.
Article 4 has enabled the reorganization of Indian states, from the large-scale linguistic reshaping in the 1950s to the more recent formation of states like Telangana. It allows changes to happen swiftly while maintaining constitutional clarity and legality.
By making it easier for the Union to respond to state formation demands, Article 4 supports the flexible and adaptive character of Indian federalism. It helps the Constitution evolve alongside social and political realities without undermining foundational doctrines.
Article 377 of the Indian Constitution long stood as one of the nation’s most debated…
Housing is the foundation of social and economic stability—an essential right that shapes the quality…
India’s criminal justice framework relies heavily on the Indian Penal Code (IPC), an extensive legal…
Bail is a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, ensuring that an accused person is not unnecessarily…
Public health stands as a cornerstone for any society aspiring to thrive, innovate, and achieve…
India’s roads are among the busiest, most diverse, and sometimes, most chaotic in the world.…