To reorganize the states or to alter their boundaries, the Union Parliament requires :

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct option is 1:

The correct requirement for the Union Parliament to reorganize states or alter their boundaries is a **Simple Majority**. This procedure is governed by Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Indian Constitution. Article 3 empowers Parliament to form a new state, increase or decrease the area of any state, alter the boundaries of any state, or alter the name of any state. Article 4 then explicitly states that any law made under Article 2 (admission or establishment of new states) or Article 3 will *not* be considered an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368, the provision that deals with constitutional amendments requiring a special majority. Therefore, such laws can be passed by a simple majority, meaning a majority of the members present and voting in each House of Parliament. This provision highlights India’s identity as an "indestructible Union of destructible states," reflecting the power of the Central Government to redraw the political map of the nation without needing the cumbersome process of a constitutional amendment.

The incorrect option is 2:

**Two-third majority** is incorrect because this term generally refers to the "Special Majority" required for most Constitutional Amendments under Article 368 (i.e., a majority of the total membership of the house and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that house present and voting). Since the formation or alteration of states is expressly excluded from the process of constitutional amendment under Article 368, this higher, more stringent requirement is not necessary. Applying a special majority would contradict the constitutional scheme designed to make inter-state boundary changes relatively easy to facilitate the smooth functioning and evolution of the Indian federation.

The incorrect option is 3:

**Consent of the concerned states** is factually inaccurate regarding the final authority. While the bill proposing the reorganization must be referred by the President to the legislature of the concerned state(s) for expressing its views, the Parliament is *not* bound by the opinion or consent of the state legislature. The term 'consent' implies that the state has veto power, which is explicitly denied under Article 3. The state legislature's opinion is consultative only. Parliament can proceed to pass the bill even if the state legislature rejects it or fails to provide an opinion within the specified time, reinforcing the centralized nature of India's quasi-federal structure in matters of territorial integrity.

The incorrect option is 4:

**Two-thirds majority of those present and voting** is also incorrect because this phrasing describes one component of the special majority required for constitutional amendments, but it is not the standard used for state reorganization. Laws under Article 3 are categorized as ordinary legislative procedures. If the framers had intended for Parliament to use a two-thirds majority (even if only of those present and voting), they would have provided for this within Article 4. Instead, Parliament is treated as if it were passing an ordinary law, which only demands a simple majority (a majority of those present and voting) to be enacted.