"Lok Sabha passes Bill to rename Kerala to Keralam under Article 3"
Article 3
Constitutional provision empowering Parliament to alter state names, areas, or boundaries on Presidential recommendation.
First Schedule
Lists the names of states and union territories as they appear in the Constitution.
The power to alter the name of a state is explicitly vested in Parliament under Article 3 of the Constitution, which also empowers Parliament to form new states, increase or diminish the area of any state, and alter state boundaries. This provision reflects the framers' intent to keep the territorial and nominal organisation of the Union flexible and responsive to evolving political and linguistic realities, while ensuring that such changes remain a parliamentary — not a unilateral state — prerogative. The procedure under Article 3 requires that any Bill proposing such a change can be introduced in Parliament only on the recommendation of the President. If the Bill affects the area, boundaries, or name of a state, the President must refer it to the concerned state legislature and give it a reasonable opportunity to express its views — though those views are not binding on Parliament.
The linguistic reorganisation of states, which gave Kerala its current form, was itself a landmark exercise in post-independence consolidation. The States Reorganisation Commission under Syed Fazl Ali submitted its report in 1955, recommending the redrawing of internal boundaries along linguistic lines. Acting on these recommendations, the modern state of Kerala came into existence on November 1, 1956, uniting the Malayalam-speaking populations of the princely states of Travancore and Cochin (integrated in 1949 as Travancore-Cochin State) with the Malabar district of the Madras Presidency and Kasargod taluk. The state's name in English and in the First Schedule of the Constitution was recorded as 'Kerala', while in Malayalam it was always called 'Keralam'.
The distinction between 'Kerala' and 'Keralam' is not merely orthographic — it reflects a deeper linguistic identity claim. In Malayalam, the terminal 'm' (anusvara) is an integral part of the word; 'Keralam' is the authentic Malayalam rendering, while 'Kerala' is an anglicised transliteration that dropped the final nasal. The state assembly's argument is that the official constitutional name should reflect the language and identity of its people, not a colonial-era anglicisation.
The etymological roots of 'Keralam' are ancient and contested. One of the earliest recorded references appears in Emperor Ashoka's Rock Edict II (circa 257 BCE), which mentions 'Keralaputra' — literally 'son of Kerala' in Sanskrit — as a frontier sovereign, widely understood to refer to the Chera dynasty, one of the three great kingdoms of early South India alongside the Cholas and Pandyas. Later derivations trace the word to the Kannada/Canarese 'keram' or 'cheram' (coastal land), or to the Old Tamil roots 'cher' (to join) and 'alam' (region), suggesting a land formed by the joining of territories. …
The Parliament of India acquires the power to legislate on any item in the State List in the national interest if a resolution to that effect is passed by the
With reference to the Indian Parliament, consider the following statements:
1.A bill pending in the Lok Sabha lapses on its dissolution.
2.A bill passed by the Lok Sabha and pending in the Rajya Sabha lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
3.A bill in regard to which the President of India notified his/her intention to summon the Houses to a joint sitting lapses on the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
With reference to the procedure for altering the name of a state under the Indian Constitution, consider the following statements:
1.A Bill seeking to alter the name of a state can be introduced in Parliament only on the recommendation of the President.
2.The state legislature's view on such a Bill is binding on Parliament.
3.Such a Bill is deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution under Article 368 and requires a special majority.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following correctly describes the constitutional basis for Parliament's power to alter the name of a state in India?
Consider the following statements about the formation of the state of Kerala:
1.Kerala was formed on November 1, 1956, following the recommendations of the States Reorganisation Commission.
2.The States Reorganisation Commission was chaired by Syed Fazl Ali.
3.The princely states of Travancore and Cochin were integrated in 1956 to form the Travancore-Cochin State, which then became part of Kerala.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Assertion (A): A Bill introduced in Parliament under Article 3 to alter the name of a state does not require the special majority prescribed under Article 368 of the Constitution.
Reason (R): Article 4 of the Constitution explicitly provides that laws made under Articles 2 and 3 shall not be deemed to be amendments of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368.
Which of the following is the earliest known historical reference to the term 'Keralaputra', and what does it signify?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account