PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS-FOR A SEPARATE STATE

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS
Article 3 in The Constitution Of India
3. Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States:
Parliament may by law
          (a) 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;
          (b) increase the area of any State;
          (c) diminish the area of any State;
          (d) alter the boundaries of any State;
          (e) alter the name of any State; Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired
Explanation I In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), State includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, State does not include a Union territory
Explanation II The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of any State or Union territory to any other State or Union territory
amendments-5th,8th....
BIFURCATION OF STATES AND RELATED COURT CASES
In Babulal Parate v State of Bombay,(1959) a five-judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court , the issue was the Constitutionality of Sec8A of the States Reorganization Act, 1956. In the Bill the Parliament referred to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bombay, the proposal to split the State of Bombay into a Union Territory of Bombay, State of Maharashtra and State of Gujarat. However, the Parliament thereafter amended the Bill to include the Union Territory of Bombay within the State of Maharashtra and then passed it. When this was challenged, the Supreme Court held that the Parliament could amend the Bill after the views of the State Assembly was obtained and it need not be referred back to the State Assembly for expression of its views.
In Pradeep Chaudhary v Union of India, the Parliament included the district of Haridwar in Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganization Bill 2000, despite disapproval of the Uttar Pradesh State Assembly when the Bill was referred to it. Once again the Apex Court opined that the Parliament is not bound by the views of the State Assembly.
India is an embodiment of the ‘holding together’ model of Federalism. Our Constitution was not the result of states coming together.