Why in the News?

The Union Cabinet approved the proposal to alter the name of Kerala to “Keralam” under Article 3 of the Constitution. The proposal follows unanimous resolutions passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly in 2023 and 2024. The Centre will now refer the Bill to the State Legislature for views before Parliamentary approval. The change aligns the English name with its Malayalam usage and corrects what the state considers a historical anomaly in the First Schedule of the Constitution.

The development also contrasts with stalled demands such as West Bengal’s proposal to rename itself as Bangla. This raised questions about uniformity and political considerations in Centre-State relations.

How does Article 3 of the Constitution regulate alteration of state names, and what does it reveal about federal balance?

1. Article 3 Provision: Empowers Parliament to form new states, alter boundaries, or change names of existing states.
2. Presidential Reference: Requires the President to refer the Bill to the concerned State Legislature for its views. The President must refer the bill to the state legislature within a specified period.
3. Non-Binding Opinion: State Legislature’s views are not binding on Parliament. Parliament is not bound to accept or act upon the views of the state legislature.
4. Parliamentary Supremacy: Final decision rests with Parliament through simple majority.
5. Constitutional Amendment Not Required: Change of name does not require Article 368 amendment; modification of First Schedule suffices.

Article 3 demonstrates that India is an “indestructible Union of destructible states”. It highlights a unitary bias within the federal structure. This is because the Parliament can unilaterally reorganize the territory of a state without its consent, prioritizing national administrative and political considerations over state autonomy

What historical and linguistic factors underpin the demand to rename Kerala as ‘Keralam’?

1. Linguistic Identity: “Keralam” is the Malayalam name of the state.
2. State Reorganisation (1956): Formed on 1 November 1956 under the States Reorganisation Act on linguistic basis.
3. First Schedule Anomaly: English name “Kerala” differs from Malayalam usage.
4. Assembly Resolutions (2023 & 2024): Unanimously passed resolutions requesting amendment under Article 3.
5. Kerala Piravi Day: Observed on 1 November marking linguistic reorganisation.

What governance and administrative implications arise from renaming a state?

1. Statutory Changes: Requires amendments in central and state laws referencing the state name.
2. Administrative Revisions: Updating official records, seals, stationery, digital platforms.
3. Financial Implications: Expenditure on branding, documentation, and communication.
4. Diplomatic Communication: Change to be reflected in official communications and treaties.
5. Public Identity Alignment: Harmonises constitutional name with linguistic usage.

How does this development fit within India’s broader history of renaming and identity politics?

1. Bombay to Maharashtra (1960): Linguistic reorganisation.
2. Madras to Tamil Nadu (1969): Cultural assertion.
3. Orissa to Odisha (2011): Corrected anglicised spelling via constitutional amendment.
4. Uttaranchal to Uttarakhand (2007): Regional identity assertion.
5. West Bengal-Bangla Demand: Illustrates pending identity-based renaming request.

Conclusion

The proposal to rename Kerala as “Keralam” reflects the dynamic character of Indian federalism, where linguistic identity operates within a clearly defined constitutional framework. Article 3 balances parliamentary supremacy with consultative federalism, ensuring that state aspirations are processed through institutional mechanisms rather than political discretion alone. The development underscores the continuing relevance of linguistic reorganisation in post-independence India and highlights the need for consistency, transparency, and procedural integrity in handling similar demands. Ultimately, the episode reaffirms that constitutional flexibility remains central to accommodating identity-based aspirations within the unity of the Indian Union

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2020] How far do you think cooperation, competition and confrontation have shaped the nature of federation in India? Cite some recent examples to validate your answer.

Linkage: It tests the dynamic nature of Indian federalism under GS II (Centre-State Relations), focusing on cooperative and competitive dimensions within constitutional design. It links directly to developments like the Article 3 process for renaming Kerala as “Keralam,” GST negotiations, and Centre-State disputes over governors and fiscal devolution.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now