States Reorganisation, and the Language Question

What happened after 1956

Bombay was divided in 1960 into Maharashtra and Gujarat by the Bombay Reorganisation Act 1960, after the Samyukta Maharashtra and Mahagujarat movements. It is worth noting because Babulal Parate arises from this process.

Punjab was divided in 1966 into Punjab, Haryana and the Union territory of Chandigarh, with hill areas going to Himachal Pradesh.

The north east was reorganised by the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act 1971 and later Acts, creating Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh.

Three States were created in 2000 on grounds other than language: Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh, and Jharkhand from Bihar, largely on grounds of tribal identity, terrain and neglect.

Telangana was created in 2014 from Andhra Pradesh by the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2014, on grounds of regional development rather than language, both States speaking Telugu.

And Jammu and Kashmir was reorganised in 2019 into two Union territories, which is the subject of its own chapter.

The pattern is worth stating. Language was the organising principle from 1953 to 1971; since 2000 the grounds have been development, terrain and identity, and the two Telugu States show that language is no longer the criterion.

The language provisions that go with the map

Article 345 lets a State Legislature adopt any one or more of the languages in use in the State, or Hindi, as the official language of that State.

Article 347 empowers the President, on a demand made and if satisfied that a substantial proportion of the population of a State desire the use of a language spoken by them to be recognised, to direct that the language be officially recognised throughout the State or any part of it.

Article 344 provides for a Commission and a Committee of Parliament on official language.

And articles 350A and 350B protect the linguistic minority left inside a reorganised State, by requiring facilities for instruction in the mother tongue at the primary stage and by creating a Special Officer for linguistic minorities. Those are taken up in the chapter on linguistic pluralism in Module II.

A worked example

A movement demands a new State to be carved out of the eastern districts of an existing State, on the ground that those districts speak a distinct language, have a distinct literature, and have received a disproportionately small share of public investment. The State government opposes it. What is the constitutional route, and what stops it?

The route is article 3, and it is short. A Bill on the President's recommendation, referred to the State Legislature for its views within a specified period, then an ordinary majority in both Houses of Parliament. The State's opposition is a view and no more.

Nothing in the Constitution requires a linguistic basis. The criteria applied since 1955 are policy criteria, drawn from the States Reorganisation Commission's report and from practice: language, administrative and financial viability, the unity and security of India, and the interests of the people of the area. A court will not apply them, because article 3 confers a legislative power and not a discretion to be reviewed for reasonableness.

And Babulal Parate removes the procedural objection. In Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 51. Facts. The Bill implementing the States Reorganisation Commission's proposals for Bombay was referred to the State Legislature and then substantially modified in Parliament, so that the Legislature had never expressed its views on the Bill as passed. Held. The proviso to article 3 requires only that the Bill as introduced be referred and the views be obtained within the period specified, and that Parliament may amend the Bill thereafter without a fresh reference. Why it matters here is that a movement cannot be defeated, and a State cannot be protected, by an argument about what exactly was referred.

What actually decides the question is political, and that is the honest answer: the constitutional threshold is low and the political threshold is high, which is why demands persist for decades.

Distinctions

The last row is in this table because MU has printed a question attributing the language recommendation to Sarkaria. It is a factual error in the printed question, and a candidate who knows what Sarkaria actually was can answer the question and say so.

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean the Constitution requires linguistic States. Article 3 sets no criterion at all. The linguistic principle is policy, not law.

It does not mean every State is monolingual. Every State contains linguistic minorities, which is why articles 347, 350A and 350B exist.

It does not mean reorganisation ended in 1956. It has continued in every decade since, on shifting grounds.

And it does not mean linguistic reorganisation was a mistake or a success. The Dhar Commission's fear was that it would encourage separatism; the counter-argument is that conceding the linguistic demand removed the grievance and that India's linguistic diversity has not produced secession. An answer that states both is better than one that asserts either.

Quick revision

Dhar Commission 1948: administrative convenience, not language. JVP Committee 1949: defer, with Andhra a possible exception. Potti Sriramulu died 15 December 1952; Andhra State created 1 October 1953. States Reorganisation Commission under Fazl Ali, Panikkar and Kunzru, appointed December 1953, reported 30 September 1955: language important but not the sole criterion, with unity and security, viability and the people's interests. States Reorganisation Act 1956 with the Seventh Amendment: fourteen States and six Union territories, abolishing Parts A, B and C. Later: Bombay divided 1960, Punjab 1966, the north east from 1971, three States in 2000 on non-linguistic grounds, Telangana 2014, Jammu and Kashmir 2019. Language provisions: articles 344, 345 and 347, with 350A and 350B protecting linguistic minorities. Babulal Parate: only the Bill as introduced need be referred. The Sarkaria Commission was on Centre-State relations and reported in 1988.

Test yourself

1. Name the three bodies that considered reorganisation before 1956 and what each recommended. The Dhar Commission 1948, against a linguistic basis and for administrative convenience; the JVP Committee 1949, to defer linguistic provinces with Andhra as a possible exception; and the States Reorganisation Commission 1955, accepting language as an important but not the sole criterion alongside unity and security, viability and the interests of the people.

2. What was the Sarkaria Commission, and why is that worth knowing here? It was a commission on Centre-State relations which reported in 1988. It is worth knowing because a printed examination question has attributed the linguistic reorganisation recommendation to it, and a candidate who knows the difference can answer accurately.

3. What did the States Reorganisation Act 1956 do? It redrew the internal map into fourteen States and six Union territories and, with the Seventh Amendment, abolished the classification of States into Parts A, B and C.

4. Give two States created on grounds other than language and say what the grounds were. Jharkhand in 2000, on grounds of tribal identity and regional neglect; and Telangana in 2014, on grounds of regional development, both it and Andhra Pradesh speaking Telugu.

5. Does the Constitution require a State to be linguistically homogeneous? No. Article 3 lays down no criterion, and articles 347, 350A and 350B exist precisely because every State contains linguistic minorities.

6. What procedural argument did Babulal Parate close off? That where a Bill referred to a State Legislature is substantially amended in Parliament, a fresh reference is needed. The Court held that only the Bill as introduced need be referred and Parliament may amend it afterwards.