Which of the following statement is incorrect?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 4:
$$Parliament may by law alter the federal structure of Constitution of India.$$
This statement is incorrect because, although the Parliament of India possesses vast powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, this power is not absolute, especially concerning the core features of the Constitution. The Supreme Court established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' in the landmark **Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)** case. This doctrine states that while Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter, destroy, or modify the 'basic structure' or fundamental features of the Constitution. Federalism, characterized by the division of powers between the Union and the States, has consistently been recognized by the judiciary as a crucial component of India's basic structure. Therefore, Parliament cannot fundamentally change the federal character of the Constitution to convert India into a purely unitary state. Parliament can certainly make amendments affecting the balance of power within the federal framework (as allowed under Article 3 for boundary changes), but a fundamental alteration or destruction of the federal system itself is unconstitutional and would be struck down by the judiciary. Thus, the assertion that Parliament may by law alter the federal structure is legally unsound in the context of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

The incorrect option is 1:
$$Parliament may by law form a new state by separation of territory from any state or by uniting two or more states or parts of states or by uniting any territory to a part of any State.$$
This statement is correct, as it accurately reflects the power granted to the Parliament of India under **Article 3 of the Constitution**. Article 3 is the constitutional provision that allows the Union Parliament to reorganize the political map of India without the explicit consent of the states involved, making India an "indestructible Union of destructible States." The formation of new states, such as the creation of Telangana from Andhra Pradesh or Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh, is carried out through this process. This unilateral power of the Parliament underscores the relatively centralized nature of Indian federalism compared to federations like the United States.

The incorrect option is 2:
$$Parliament may by law increase the area of any State.$$
This statement is correct, falling directly under the mandate of **Article 3(a) of the Constitution**. The Parliament has the authority to increase the area of any existing state, often done in conjunction with the formation of new states or alteration of boundaries, where territory from one area is added to another. For instance, when a new state is carved out of an old one, the remaining parts of the original state might see their area adjusted. This power is exercised through a simple majority vote in Parliament, provided the President has referred the bill to the concerned state legislature for expressing its views, although Parliament is not bound by those views.

The incorrect option is 3:
$$Parliament may by law diminish the area of any State.$$
This statement is also correct, as per **Article 3(c) of the Constitution**. The power to diminish the area of a state is perhaps the most significant aspect of Parliament's authority over the states' territories. It means that Parliament can reduce the size of a state, even against the wishes of the concerned state legislature. This provision was famously demonstrated in the context of the reorganization of states like Bombay (into Maharashtra and Gujarat) and Punjab (into Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh). This facility to diminish the area highlights the principle that the territorial integrity of the states is not guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.