Skip to main content
Indian Polity 3% exam weight

Constitutional Framework and Key Articles

Part of the RPSC RAS study roadmap. Indian Polity topic indian-001 of Indian Polity.

→ See in Roadmap Build 1-Month Plan

Constitutional Framework and Key Articles

The Constitution of India is the supreme legal document of the nation, establishing the framework of governance, defining the structure of the state, and enumerating the fundamental rights and duties of citizens. Adopted on 26 November 1949 and enforced on 26 January 1950, it is one of the longest written constitutions in the world, containing 448 articles (originally 395) organized into 25 Parts and 12 Schedules. The Constitution embodies the ideals of sovereignty, socialism, secularism, democracy, and fraternity, as amended from time to time. For the RPSC RAS examination, a thorough understanding of the constitutional framework — particularly the provisions concerning the territory of India, the role of the Union and States, and the distribution of authority — is essential as these form the structural foundation upon which all other aspects of Indian Polity rest.

The constitutional framework operates on several interlocking principles: federalism, which distributes power between the Union and States; parliamentary government, which ensures executive accountability to the legislature; judicial review, which empowers courts to strike down unconstitutional laws; and fundamental rights, which protect individual liberties against state action. Understanding how Articles 1 through 4 define the territory and citizenship, how the Schedules map the administrative divisions, and how the Borunal Authority coordinates inter-governmental relations gives the RAS candidate a mental map of the Constitution’s architecture. These provisions appear consistently in both the RAS Preliminary and Main examinations, often in combination with current affairs related to centre-state relations, federal disputes, or territorial boundaries.

🟢 Lite — Quick Review (1h–1d)

Rapid summary for last-minute revision before your exam.

Constitutional Framework — the core idea: the Constitution defines what India is (territory, citizenship), who governs it (Union and States), and how power flows between them. Articles 1 through 4 and the Schedules are the most frequently tested provisions in both RAS Preliminary and Main examinations. Master these and you build a foundation for every other topic in Indian Polity.

Key Articles to Memorise:

  • Article 1 — Name and Territory: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” This is the foundational declaration. The territory includes all states, Union Territories listed in the First Schedule, and any acquired territories. Note the word “Union” — not “Federation.” This was a deliberate choice by Ambedkar.
  • Article 2 — Admission of New States: Parliament may by law admit new states into the Union or establish new states. The key word is “admit” — used for territories previously outside India (e.g., Sikkim, technically applied for Sikkim’s accession in 1975). Does NOT require consulting the state legislature.
  • Article 3 — Formation/Alteration of States: The workhorse provision. Parliament may form a new state, increase area, decrease area, alter boundaries, or change the name of any state. Five scenarios, all covered under one article. The President must refer the Bill to the state legislature for views, but those views are NOT binding on Parliament.
  • Article 4 — Supplemental Provisions: Laws made under Articles 2 and 3 may also make supplemental, incidental, and consequential provisions — including amendments to the First and Second Schedules. Critical distinction: such Schedule amendments do NOT require the Article 368 amendment procedure. This is the most frequently tested nuance of Article 4.

Key Schedules — What to Remember:

  • Schedule 1: Lists all 28 States and 8 Union Territories with their areas and boundaries. Your map of India lives here.
  • Schedule 2: Emoluments (salaries and allowances) of the President, Governors, judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, and the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of UPSC. Also contains forms of oath for constitutional functionaries.
  • Schedule 4: Allocation of Rajya Sabha seats. Currently 233 seats for states, 12 for UTs. Seat numbers are based on population (latest delimitation 2008).
  • Schedule 5: Administration and control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in states (non-northeastern states). Governor has special responsibilities here.
  • Schedule 6: Tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram with Autonomous District Councils — legislative and executive powers over land, forests, and customs.
  • Schedule 9: Laws placed here are shielded from judicial review on grounds of violating Fundamental Rights (Article 31B). Added by the 1st Amendment, 1951. Landmark case: Kesavananda Bharati (1973) upheld it but added the basic structure limit; IR Coelho (2007) confirmed all post-1973 Ninth Schedule laws are open to basic structure challenge.
  • Schedule 10: Anti-defection provisions (52nd Amendment, 1985). Disqualification of legislators on ground of defection, exceptions for splits and mergers, Speaker/Chairman as adjudicating authority.

Borunal Authority — Quick Recall:

  • Established in 1990 under Article 263 by a Presidential Order
  • Named after the Borunal tribal group of Assam — spelling is “Borunal,” NOT “Barunal”
  • A five-member advisory body: Chairman (former Supreme Court judge) + four members + secretariat
  • Mandate: inquire into inter-state disputes, investigate subjects of common interest, make coordination recommendations
  • Has NO executive or judicial powers — purely advisory -Jurisdiction is limited to state-state disputes only — NOT Union-state disputes

Most Common Mistakes to Avoid:

  • Writing “India is a federation” in the exam. Correct answer: “India is a Union of States with federal features.” Confirmed in Srinkant Buradkar vs. State of Maharashtra (1978). In a federation (USA), states pre-existed the Union and can secede. In India, states were created BY the Union and cannot secede.
  • Confusing Article 2 (admission — new territory from outside India) with Article 3 (alteration — working with existing states). This is the most popular RAS trap question.
  • Mixing up Fifth Schedule (tribal areas in non-northeastern states) with Sixth Schedule (northeastern tribal autonomous districts). Fifth = states like Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha. Sixth = NE states only.
  • Forgetting that changes to Schedules 1 and 2 under Article 3 do NOT require Article 368 amendment. This saves Parliament from the more cumbersome amendment process.
  • Confusing the Borunal Authority with the Inter-State Council (ISC). The ISC is the broader body chaired by the PM with all CMs; the Borunal Authority is the specific five-member committee within it.

🟡 Standard — Regular Study (2d–2mo)

Standard content for students with a few days to months.

1. Articles 1–4: Territory, Citizenship, and State Reorganisation

Article 1 is the Constitution’s opening declaration: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” The word “Union” was chosen deliberately by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and the Drafting Committee over the term “Federation.” The reason is fundamental — in the United States or Australia, states existed before the federation and voluntarily joined it, retaining a right of exit. In India, the Union was formed first, and states were carved out of it for administrative convenience, linguistic identity, and national unity. States have no unilateral right to secede from the Union. This is the single most important constitutional principle tested in RAS Polity papers. The territory of India comprises three categories as listed in the First Schedule: the states (28 currently), the Union Territories (8 currently), and territories that may be acquired by India at a future date. Any change to this territorial composition requires parliamentary legislation.

Article 2 grants Parliament the power to admit new states into the Union or establish new states by law. It is narrower than Article 3. The operative word is “admit” — which implies territories that were previously outside India, such as the princely states that acceded in 1947–48. Article 2 does not require the President to refer the Bill to the concerned state legislature for its views — there is no consultation process mandated. This provision has been used sparingly: the most notable instance was Sikkim’s accession in 1975. The 35th Constitutional Amendment Act (1975) inserted Article 2A specifically to give constitutional recognition to Sikkim’s accession as having been under Article 2 — a unique, one-time use. The 36th Amendment (1975) then made Sikkim a full state under Article 3.

Article 3 is the most frequently invoked constitutional provision for state reorganisation. It empowers Parliament to act on five distinct scenarios by ordinary law: (a) formation of a new state from existing state or states; (b) increase in area of any state; (c) decrease in area of any state; (d) alteration of boundaries of any state; and (e) alteration of name of any state. All five scenarios are tested repeatedly in RAS. The procedure requires the President to refer the Bill to the concerned state legislature for expressing its views within a specified time before the Bill is introduced in Parliament. However, the Proviso to Article 3 carves out an exception: if the Bill affects only the boundaries of a state (and does not change the area), the President may introduce the Bill without referring it to the state legislature. A crucial point to remember: the state legislature’s view is purely consultative and not binding on Parliament. In Bhanumati vs. Union of India (2008), the Supreme Court upheld that Parliament may proceed with the Bill even if the state legislature’s opinion is contrary or not received within the stipulated time.

The basic structure doctrine places a substantive limit on Article 3 power. In Re: Berubari Union of India (1960), the Supreme Court held that Article 3 cannot be used to cede Indian territory to a foreign state — that would require a separate amendment under Article 368. Every major state reorganisation in India’s history has used Article 3 as its constitutional basis: Andhra Pradesh (1953), Karnataka (1956), Gujarat and Maharashtra (1960), and the three new states created in 2000 — Jharkhand (from Bihar), Chhattisgarh (from Madhya Pradesh), and Uttarakhand (from Uttar Pradesh).

Article 4 is a machinery provision. It clarifies that laws made under Articles 2 and 3 may also include supplemental, incidental, and consequential provisions, including amendments to the First and Second Schedules, without those Schedule amendments requiring the Article 368 constitutional amendment procedure. This is a distinction of enormous practical significance. When Parliament creates a new state, it simultaneously adds that state to the First Schedule — and this addition is done by the same ordinary law that creates the state, not by a separate constitutional amendment. This is why Article 4 is frequently tested: students must know that Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 changes made under Article 2 or Article 3 are exempt from Article 368.

2. Key Schedules: First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth

First Schedule contains the complete list of all 28 States and 8 Union Territories of India, with their areas specified in square kilometres and the extent of their territorial jurisdictions. This is your constitutional map. Any change in state boundaries, creation of new states, or alteration of Union Territories results in an amendment to the First Schedule — but as noted above, such amendment made under Article 3 does not require Article 368 procedure. The Schedule also defines the extent of executive authority of states over their territories. Important for RAS: questions on which state has which capital, which state was created from which parent state, and which states share international borders are all grounded in the First Schedule.

Second Schedule deals with the emoluments, salaries, and allowances of the highest constitutional functionaries. It is divided into multiple Parts: Part A covers the President and Governors (salary and allowances from the Consolidated Fund of India or the respective state); Part B covers the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the UPSC and the Chairman and Members of the Finance Commission; Part C covers the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts (salary, pension, and leave terms protected from parliamentary alteration); Part D covers the Comptroller and Auditor General. Understanding the Second Schedule helps in questions on the independence of the judiciary — the salaries and allowances of judges cannot be altered to their disadvantage after appointment, which is a key constitutional safeguard.

Fourth Schedule allocates seats in the Rajya Sabha. Currently 233 seats are allocated to states and 12 to Union Territories, making a total of 245 seats (the 250th seat was added for Delhi after the 7th Amendment, though the count was adjusted in subsequent delimitation exercises). The allocation is on a population basis using the 2001 Census (after the 2008 delimitation). Each state gets a fixed number of seats, and each UT gets a specific allocation. For example: Uttar Pradesh has 31 seats, Rajasthan has 10, Bihar has 16, Delhi has 3 (nominated by the President), and Puducherry has 1. The allocation of Rajya Sabha seats is important for understanding federal representation — states with larger populations have proportionally more representation in the upper house, which is meant to represent states rather than population directly.

Ninth Schedule was added by the First Amendment Act, 1951, on the recommendation of the Sapru Committee (1946), to protect land reform laws and other social welfare legislation from being struck down by courts on the ground of violating Fundamental Rights, particularly Articles 14, 19, and 31. Article 31B says: “The validation of laws specified in the Ninth Schedule — such laws shall not be deemed to be void, never mind inconsistency with, or contravention of, any provision of this Part.” In Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Ninth Schedule but drew a crucial line: laws added to the Ninth Schedule BEFORE the Kesavananda decision (i.e., before 25 April 1973) are fully protected; laws added AFTER must not violate the basic structure of the Constitution. In IR Coelho vs. Union of India (2007), the Court reaffirmed and clarified: all Ninth Schedule laws — whether added before or after 1973 — are now subject to basic structure review. This means a Ninth Schedule law can still be struck down if it violates the basic structure, even if it was added to the Schedule to shield it from fundamental rights challenges. The 77th Amendment Act (1995) added provisions for OBC reservation to the Ninth Schedule — challenged in Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992) but partially upheld later.

Tenth Schedule contains the anti-defection law, inserted by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985. It specifies the grounds for disqualification of a member of Parliament or state legislature on the ground of defection. The key provisions: a member elected on a party ticket must resign or merge with another party within 6 months of winning — otherwise they face disqualification. Splitting of a party (when at least one-third of legislators split) is not treated as defection. Merger of parties is permitted if at least two-thirds of a party’s legislators merge into another party. The presiding officer (Speaker or Chairman) decides disqualification matters. Two landmark rulings shaped this: Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu (1992) upheld the anti-defection law but struck down the provision that gave the presiding officer’s decision automatic finality without judicial review. Supreme Court vs. Union of India (1993) further refined the scope.

3. Borunal Authority and Inter-State Relations

Borunal Authority — the spelling is “Borunal,” named after the Borunal tribal group in Assam’s Golaghat district. It is frequently misspelled as “Barunal” in casual references — avoid this in the exam. The Authority was established in 1990 under Article 263 by a Presidential Order, following the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission (1983–88), which had studied centre-state relations extensively and recommended a permanent institutional mechanism for inter-governmental coordination.

Article 263 empowers the President to establish an inter-state council if it appears to him that the public interest would be served by its establishment. The Borunal Authority has a specific mandate covering three areas: (a) inquiring into and advising on disputes arising between states; (b) investigating and discussing subjects of common interest to states; and (c) making recommendations for the coordination of policy on matters of inter-state concern. It is important to note that the Authority has no executive powers — its role is purely advisory. It cannot enforce its recommendations on states. It also cannot adjudicate disputes — that is the domain of the Supreme Court under Article 131 (original jurisdiction).

The composition of the Authority is: a Chairman (who is a former Judge of the Supreme Court or a person of equivalent eminence), and four other members with experience in public affairs, administration, and governance. It has a full-time secretariat to support its work. In practice, the Authority has been used to address border disputes (Maharashtra vs. Karnataka over Belgaum/Sankeshwar, Assam vs. Meghalaya over boundary villages resolved in 2022), river water sharing disputes, language policy conflicts between states, and GST compensation claims.

The Inter-State Council (ISC) and the Borunal Authority are related but distinct. The ISC is the broader constitutional body established under Article 263, comprising the Prime Minister as Chairman, all Chief Ministers of states, Administrators of UTs, and six Union Ministers. It was set up in 1990 and met regularly in its early years before becoming largely dormant. The Borunal Authority is a specific five-member committee constituted under the ISC’s umbrella — it is one mechanism within the ISC framework. A common exam question contrasts the two: the Borunal Authority is a small, expert advisory committee focused on specific disputes and subjects; the ISC is a large forum for broad centre-state consultation. The Authority’s jurisdiction covers only state-state disputes — it cannot mediate disputes where the Union Government itself is a party. In GST compensation disputes, this limitation became a live controversy when states demanded that the Authority intervene against the Union’s position.

4. Original Articles vs. Amended Articles — Key Evolution Points

The Constitution of India, as adopted in 1950, had 395 articles in 22 Parts with 8 Schedules. Today it has 448 articles in 25 Parts and 12 Schedules. The increase in articles comes from amendments that have inserted new articles (some replacing originals, some adding new ones) and from new Schedules being added.

Several original articles have been substantially amended:

  • Article 81 (originally 81): Basis of allocation of seats in the House of the People — amended to change population-based allocation after each delimitation.
  • Article 172: Recognition of state parties and the President’s rule process — significantly modified by the 42nd Amendment.
  • Article 356 (President’s Rule in states): Heavily amended, most notably by the 44th Amendment (1978) which introduced procedural safeguards against misuse following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in RC Cooper vs. Union of India (1970) — the “bank nationalisation case” which struck down the President’s Rule in Gujarat and elsewhere as discriminatory.
  • Article 368: Amendment procedure — itself amended several times, and its scope defined by Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and subsequent cases.

The 42nd Amendment Act (1976) is the most comprehensive amendment, dubbed the “Mini-Constitution.” It added the words “Socialist” and “Secular” to the Preamble, made directive principles more supreme over fundamental rights in certain contexts, added new articles on voter age, and substantially expanded the emergency provisions. The 44th Amendment (1978) responded to excesses of the Emergency period by restoring many fundamental rights, modifying Article 356, and adding Articles 359A and others.

🔴 Extended — Deep Study (3mo+)

Comprehensive coverage for students on a longer study timeline.

1. History of Constitutional Drafting and the Constituent Assembly

The Constitution of India was not drafted in haste. Its origins trace to the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946, which proposed a Constituent Assembly to frame India’s constitution. The Assembly first met on 9 December 1946 under the chairmanship of Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who later became India’s first President. The total strength of the Assembly was 389 seats, representing all provinces and princely states of British India. The Assembly functioned through multiple sessions spanning nearly three years — from December 1946 to November 1949 — before the Constitution was adopted.

The Drafting Committee was appointed on 29 August 1947 with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as its Chairman. Ambedkar, a scholar of constitutional law and a leading voice for marginalised communities, is rightfully recognised as the principal architect of the Constitution. He steered the Drafting Committee through hundreds of sittings, synthesising inputs from across the political spectrum, legal scholars, and representatives of diverse social groups. Other key members included Nehru, Patel, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, and N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, among others.

The Assembly drew inspiration from multiple constitutional models. The Government of India Act 1935 was the most immediate and extensive source — its provisions on executive, legislature, federal structure, and administration were adapted extensively. From the United States Constitution came the concept of fundamental rights, judicial review, and the independence of the Supreme Court. From the Irish Constitution came the Directive Principles of State Policy (inspired by the Irish “Directive Principles of Social Policy”), the concept of a single citizenship, and the figure of the President as a ceremonial head of state with real executive power vested in the Council of Ministers. From Canada came the concept of a strong Centre with residuary powers vested in the Union, and the modified British parliamentary system with a cabinet. From Australia came the provisions on the creation of new states and the trade and commerce between states. From the Soviet Union came the idea of a written constitution as an organic document.

The Constituent Assembly held extensive and often heated debates on the nature of the state, the balance between Centre and states, fundamental rights, the language question, and the position of minorities. The question of federalism was particularly contentious. Nehru and Patel favoured a strong Centre; representatives of provinces, particularly those with distinct linguistic identities like Andhra (Madras Presidency), Mysore, and others, argued for greater state autonomy. The eventual compromise was a constitution that was federal in structure but unitary in spirit — a “Union of States” rather than a federation of states, as Ambedkar famously clarified.

2. The Significance of “Union of States” and Its Constitutional Implications

Ambedkar’s explanation of “Union of States” in the Constituent Assembly remains the definitive interpretation. He said: “The Draft Constitution is a Federation because the States have independent existence in a limited field. But it is a Union because there is no right to secession.” This single statement resolves a recurring confusion in RAS examination answers.

The phrase “Union of States” has three layered implications:

First, it means the Union is indestructible and states cannot unilaterally separate from it. The constituent units (states) have no sovereignty, no right of self-preservation, and no exit option. This is the opposite of the American federal model, where states retained sovereignty and could secede — a right only extinguished by the Civil War.

Second, it means states were created by the Union for administrative, linguistic, and cultural convenience — not the other way around. States exist at the pleasure of the Union, subject to parliamentary legislation under Articles 2, 3, and 4. Their boundaries, names, areas, and existence can be changed by ordinary parliamentary law.

Third, it creates a hierarchy: the Union Constitution is supreme, and state constitutions (there are no separate state constitutions) are creatures of the Union Constitution. The Supreme Court confirmed this in State of West Bengal vs. Union of India (1963), holding that India has a federal structure but with an unitary bias, particularly in times of emergency.

The language of Articles 1 through 4 codifies this hierarchy explicitly. Article 1 declares India a Union. Article 2 gives Parliament the power to admit new states by ordinary law. Article 3 empowers Parliament to form new states, alter boundaries, change names, and decrease area — all by ordinary law. Article 4 makes consequential Schedule changes part of such ordinary laws, bypassing the more demanding Article 368 amendment procedure. The combined effect is a constitutional architecture in which the Union is primary and states are derivative.

This is why the Supreme Court’s declaration in Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973) — that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be amended — is particularly relevant to federalism. If Parliament used Article 368 to destroy the federal structure entirely (e.g., by abolishing state legislatures), courts could intervene on basic structure grounds.

3. States vs. Union Territories — Constitutional Distinction

States and Union Territories occupy fundamentally different positions in India’s constitutional architecture. This distinction is a frequent source of examination questions and must be understood clearly.

States are enumerated in the First Schedule and are governed under Part VI of the Constitution. They have their own legislative assemblies (in some cases, bicameral legislatures), Council of Ministers headed by a Chief Minister, and a Governor appointed by the President. States have legislative competence over subjects in the State List and the Concurrent List. They have separate public service commissions, police forces under their control, and constitutional mechanisms for centre-state consultation (Article 263, zonal councils, inter-state council).

Union Territories, governed under Part VIII (Articles 239–241), are administered directly by the President acting through an Administrator or Lieutenant Governor. Parliament has exclusive legislative power over Union Territories. They do not have separate public service commissions (except Delhi), their police forces are under the Union’s control, and they cannot make laws on most subjects independently. Union Territories can be created, merged, renamed, or altered by a simple parliamentary law — not requiring a constitutional amendment.

The creation of Union Territories reflects the Union’s direct responsibility for territories that are strategically important, too small to be states, or require direct central administration. Delhi is the notable exception: Article 239AA (added by the 69th Amendment Act, 1991) created the National Capital Territory of Delhi with a legislative assembly and Council of Ministers, but with specific limitations. The legislative assembly cannot make laws on police, public order, and land — these remain with the Union. The Lieutenant Governor retains powers to refer certain matters to the President.

Delhi’s constitutional position has been litigated extensively. In Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi vs. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that the “real executive power” in Delhi vests in the elected government (Chief Minister and Council of Ministers), while the Lieutenant Governor is the administrative head representing the President. The Court distinguished Delhi from other Union Territories, recognising its quasi-state character while affirming its fundamental UT status. This case is essential reading for understanding the evolving relationship between the Union and UTs.

4. Schedules in Detail — Purpose, Content, and Constitutional Significance

The 12 Schedules of the Constitution serve as legal annexures containing the granular details of provisions described in the main articles. Originally there were 8 Schedules; the count rose to 12 after amendments. The 7th Amendment Act (1956) merged the original schedules for provinces and states and eliminated two schedules. Today, the 10 Schedules in active use cover territory, emoluments, official oaths, legislative representation, tribal administration, and local governance.

First Schedule: As described in the Standard section — the constitutional map. Key detail: the Schedule specifies not just state names but the “extent of the territories of the state” — which is crucial for boundary disputes. The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 131 extends to disputes over the interpretation of the First Schedule’s extent provisions.

Second Schedule: The emoluments schedule. The most constitutionally sensitive provision here is the protection of judges’ salaries under Articles 125 and 221 — Parliament cannot reduce the salary of a judge after appointment. This is a key element of judicial independence. The President receives a salary from the Consolidated Fund of India; Governors receive salaries from the Consolidated Fund of their respective state. The UPSC Chairman and Finance Commission Chairman are also covered.

Third Schedule: Contains the forms of oaths and affirmations for the President, Vice-President, Prime Minister, Council of Ministers, Members of Parliament, judges of Supreme Court and High Courts, the Attorney-General, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The oath to “bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution” is of symbolic and legal significance — it affirms that constitutional fidelity is the foundation of all public office.

Fourth Schedule: Allocation of Rajya Sabha seats, as covered in the Standard section. Note that the 7th Amendment (1956) introduced the system of equal representation of all states (initially one seat per state for smaller states, with larger states getting more). Subsequent delimitation exercises (1971, 2001 Census-based, implemented in 2008) changed seat counts.

Fifth Schedule: Governs the administration of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in states other than those covered by the Sixth Schedule. Under Article 244(1), the Fifth Schedule applies to states with Scheduled Areas — currently Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh. The Governor of each such state has special responsibilities: he may direct that a central or state law shall not apply to a Scheduled Area, or shall apply with modifications. He must submit a report to the President annually on the administration of these areas. A Tribal Advisory Council advises the Governor.

Sixth Schedule: Grants autonomous district councils (ADCs) to tribal-majority areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. These ADCs have legislative and executive powers over matters including land, forests, agriculture, fisheries, water management, and cultural affairs. They can levy taxes and fees within their jurisdiction. The Sixth Schedule areas have a greater degree of self-governance than Fifth Schedule areas. The 95th Amendment Act (2009) added more communities to the schedule and expanded ADC jurisdictions in some states.

Ninth Schedule: Detailed in the Standard section. The key extended point: the Ninth Schedule’s original purpose was to protect land reform laws passed by various state governments from litigation by aggrieved land owners. In the decades since, it has been used to protect a wide range of social welfare legislation, including laws on reservation, cooperative societies, and urban land ceiling. The IR Coelho vs. Union of India ruling’s significance is that it brought ALL Ninth Schedule laws within the reach of basic structure review.

Tenth Schedule: The anti-defection law. Extended analysis: the 52nd Amendment inserted this to address political instability caused by legislators switching parties after elections. The underlying rationale was to prevent “floor crossing” that undermined the mandate given by voters. However, the law has been criticised for creating “digital democracy” — where legislators vote against their party’s position but cannot resign without triggering the anti-defection rule. The Supreme Court in Kihoto Hollohan preserved the defection provisions but struck down automatic disqualification without judicial review.

Eleventh and Twelfth Schedules: Added by the 73rd and 74th Amendments (1992), they specify the powers, authority, and responsibilities of Panchayats (Eleventh) and Municipalities (Twelfth). These schedules completed the constitutionalisation of local government, making panchayats and municipalities real institutions of self-government with constitutional status.

5. Borunal Authority — Composition, Powers, and Jurisdictional Limits

The Borunal Authority (officially the “Inter-State Council’s Borunal Authority”) was established by a Presidential Order on 28 May 1990 under Article 263 of the Constitution. Its full constitutional name references its position within the Inter-State Council framework — technically it is a committee of the ISC, though in examination discourse it is treated as an independent body.

Composition: the Authority has a Chairman and four other members. The Chairman is always a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India or a person of equivalent rank and standing. The four members are drawn from senior civil servants, former administrators, or persons with significant experience in public affairs, governance, and inter-governmental relations. The Authority is supported by a full-time secretariat located in New Delhi. Members serve at the pleasure of the President (i.e., their tenure is not fixed by the Constitution).

Powers and functions: The Authority’s powers are purely investigative and advisory. It can: (a) investigate any inter-state dispute referred to it by a state government or the Union Government; (b) inquire into any matter of common interest to two or more states; (c) make recommendations to state governments and the Union on measures to promote coordination and cooperation. The Authority has no power to enforce its recommendations. States are expected to give “serious consideration” to the Authority’s advice but are not legally bound.

Jurisdictional limits: The most important limit — and a frequent examination question — is that the Borunal Authority can only deal with disputes between states, not disputes between a state and the Union Government. In a dispute involving GST compensation, where states are owed money by the Union, the Authority technically lacks jurisdiction. Similarly, in river water disputes, if the Union Ministry of Water Resources is itself a party, the Authority cannot act as adjudicator. This has led to calls for expanding its jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court in Chameli Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996) upheld the constitutional validity of the Borunal Authority and confirmed it as a body established under Article 263 — not as a body created by executive order alone, but one with a clear constitutional basis and mandate. The Court also noted that Article 263 does not specify the structure of the body in detail, leaving it to the President’s discretion.

The Authority has investigated several significant disputes: the Maharashtra-Karnataka border dispute (Belgaum region), Assam-Meghalaya boundary issues, interstate river disputes (including the Cauvery water dispute referred to it before the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal), and several inter-state transport and infrastructure matters.

6. Schedule 9 Laws and the 99th Amendment — Judicial Review and Basic Structure

The 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014, attempted to add the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) to the Ninth Schedule to shield it from judicial review. This was a landmark attempt to use the Ninth Schedule’s protective umbrella for a constitutional body, not just ordinary laws. The NJAC was meant to replace the collegium system for appointing judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts, with a composition including the Chief Justice of India, two senior judges, the Law Minister, and two eminent persons.

The Supreme Court struck down the 99th Amendment and the NJAC Act in Supreme Court Collegium System vs. Union of India (2015), holding that the NJAC violated the basic structure of the Constitution — specifically, the independence of the judiciary (a basic feature). Crucially, the Court also addressed the attempt to use the Ninth Schedule: it held that placing the NJAC Act in the Ninth Schedule could not protect it from basic structure review, as the basic structure doctrine applies to all constitutional amendments and laws, including those in the Ninth Schedule. This confirmed IR Coelho’s position and went further — it established that the Ninth Schedule’s protection cannot extend to constitutional bodies or amendments that themselves violate the basic structure.

This case is significant beyond the judicial appointments debate: it confirms that the Ninth Schedule cannot be used as a shortcut to insulate any law from constitutional challenge by invoking basic structure. Article 31B’s protection is real but limited by the basic structure doctrine as interpreted in Kesavananda Bharati and refined in IR Coelho and the NJAC case.

7. Constitutional Evolution — Key Amendments and Landmark Cases

India’s constitutional framework has evolved substantially since 1950 through amendments, judicial interpretations, and institutional developments. Understanding this evolution is essential for advanced-level RAS preparation.

Key constitutional amendments affecting the federal and territorial framework:

  • First Amendment Act (1951): Added the Ninth Schedule to protect land reform laws; also amended Articles 15, 19, 85, 174, 176, 341, 342, and 372. This was the first significant expansion of the Union’s power against judicial review.
  • Seventh Amendment Act (1956): Major states reorganisation, introducing the structure of states as we largely recognise them today (Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab). Abolished the classification of states into Parts A, B, C, D. Reorganized the second schedule. This amendment gave us the current three-tier categorisation of states.
  • 14th Amendment Act (1962): Created new Union Territories (including Laccadive, Minicoy, and Amindivi Islands); provided legislative assembly for certain UTs.
  • 27th Amendment Act (1971): Created the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Goa, Daman and Diu.
  • 35th Amendment Act (1975): Added Article 2A (Sikkim’s accession); Sikkim became the first state admitted under Article 2.
  • 36th Amendment Act (1975): Made Sikkim a full state under Article 3.
  • 42nd Amendment Act (1976): Added “Socialist” and “Secular” to the Preamble; expanded emergency provisions; restructured relationships between fundamental rights and directive principles.
  • 53rd Amendment Act (1986): Made Hindi the official language; added 48th schedule (Sikkim).
  • 69th Amendment Act (1991): Created the National Capital Territory of Delhi with a legislative assembly.
  • 91st Amendment Act (2003): Strengthened anti-defection provisions — reduced the threshold for merger from one-half to two-thirds of legislators.
  • 101st Amendment Act (2016): Introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST), created the GST Council under Article 279A, and imposed new limits on states’ taxing powers.

Key judicial milestones:

  • RC Cooper vs. Union of India (1970): The bank nationalisation case. Struck down the President’s Rule in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh as discriminatory and unconstitutional. Established that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 can be judicially reviewed — it cannot be a pure subjective satisfaction.
  • Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973): The foundational basic structure case. Thirteen judges sat — the largest bench in history. By a narrow 7-6 majority, the Court held that the basic structure of the Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament using Article 368. This is the single most important case in Indian constitutional law.
  • Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain (1975): Applied the basic structure doctrine to invalidate parliamentary amendments that had reversed specific High Court rulings against the government.
  • Minerva Mills vs. Union of India (1980): Struck down provisions of the 42nd Amendment that sought to make directive principles supreme over fundamental rights. Affirmed that both fundamental rights and directive principles are parts of the basic structure — neither can dominate the other.
  • Bhanumati vs. Union of India (2008): Confirmed that state legislature’s opinion under Article 3 is only consultative.
  • Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India (2018): Clarified the distribution of executive power in Delhi between the elected government and the Lieutenant Governor.

The GST Council under Article 279A represents the most significant institutional innovation in centre-state fiscal relations since the Finance Commission. Its composition — with the Union having one-third of votes and states having two-thirds, requiring a three-fourths majority (75% of weighted votes) for key decisions — gives states an effective veto on major tax policy changes. This is a novel form of cooperative federalism embedded in the Constitution itself through a constitutional amendment, not just a statutory body.

⚠️ Exam Tips and Common Traps:

  1. The most frequently tested trap: Students write “India is a federation” — correct answer is “India is a Union of States with federal features.” The distinction is frequently asked in RAS Main examination.
  2. Article 3 vs. Article 2: If a question asks about creating a new state from an existing state — it’s Article 3. If asking about admitting a territory that was previously outside India — Article 2.
  3. Fifth vs. Sixth Schedule: Fifth Schedule is for tribal areas in non-northeastern states; Sixth Schedule is for northeastern states with district councils. Do not confuse them — they cover different territories and have different degrees of autonomy.
  4. 9th Schedule and basic structure: Remember the IR Coelho (2007) ruling — all post-Kesavananda laws in the 9th Schedule can be struck down if they violate basic structure.
  5. Sarkaria Commission: Set up in 1983 to review centre-state relations; recommended creating ISC; its recommendations remain largely advisory and not binding.
  6. Finance Commission: Only the Union List mentions Finance Commission — but Article 280 establishes it constitutionally as an autonomous body that awards grants to states based on objective criteria.