Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 1966

The Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 1966 clarified the constitutional provisions regarding the formation of new States and Union territories, by expressly defining that the term “State” in Article 3(a) to (e) includes Union territories, but not in the proviso to the article. It further established that the power of Parliament under Article 3(a) also extends to the formation of a new State or Union territory by uniting parts of States or Union territories.
The Amendment thus removed an ambiguity left after the Seventh Amendment (1956)—which introduced the concept of Union territories—but did not explicitly include them in Article 3. Passed by Parliament in August 1966, the Act came into force upon Presidential assent on 27 August 1966.

 Background and Need for the Amendment

Before the Seventh Amendment (1956), the Constitution classified regions as Part A, Part B, and Part C States, and the term “State” in Article 3 covered all these categories. The Seventh Amendment abolished this classification and introduced the new concept of Union territories, placing them directly under the administration of the Union Government (Article 239).
However, Article 3, which empowers Parliament to alter the area, boundaries, or names of States, was not amended to expressly include Union territories within its scope. This led to constitutional uncertainty about whether Parliament could:

• merge a Union territory with a State,
• form a new Union territory from parts of States, or
• unite two Union territories to form a new administrative unit.

The Eighteenth Amendment was enacted to remove this ambiguity and provide explicit constitutional authority for such actions.

Objectives of the Amendment

The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill explained the purpose clearly:

“It is considered proper to amend this article to make it clear that ‘State’ in clauses (a) to (e) of that article (but not in the proviso) includes ‘Union territories’. It is also considered proper to make it clear that power under clause (a) includes power to form a new State or Union territory by uniting a part of a State or Union territory to another State or Union territory.”

Thus, the two key objectives were:

1. To clarify that Union territories fall within the operative clauses of Article 3, empowering Parliament to alter their boundaries or unite them with States or other Union territories.
2. To confirm that Parliament can create a new State or Union territory by uniting parts of existing ones.

 Key Provisions

The Eighteenth Amendment added two Explanations at the end of Article 3 of the Constitution:

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.

These explanations:

• Brought Union territories explicitly within Parliament’s reorganisation powers;
• Ensured that the proviso to Article 3—which requires a State legislature’s views on reorganisation—does not apply to Union territories, since they have no such legislatures;
• Clarified that Parliament could reorganise both States and Union territories flexibly, including by merging parts of one with another.

Text of Article 3 (before the amendment)

Article 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 within such period as the President may specify or allow.

The Amendment’s Explanations followed immediately after this text.

 Legislative History

The path to the Eighteenth Amendment involved two successive Bills:

1. The Constitution (Nineteenth Amendment) Bill, 1966
   • Introduced in the Lok Sabha on 9 May 1966 by Jaisukh Lal Hathi, Minister of State for Home Affairs.
   • Contained the same provisions later enacted as the Eighteenth Amendment.
   • However, it failed to obtain the required majority on 16 May 1966 and lapsed.
2. The Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Bill, 1966
   • Introduced in the Lok Sabha on 25 July 1966 by C. R. Pattabhi Raman, Minister of State in the Ministry of Law.
   • Identical in content to the earlier Nineteenth Amendment Bill.
   • During consideration, clause (1) was formally amended to rename it as the “Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 1966.”

The Bill was:

• Passed by the Lok Sabha on 10 August 1966,
• Passed by the Rajya Sabha on 24 August 1966,
• Assented to by President Zakir Husain on 27 August 1966, and
• Notified in The Gazette of India on 29 August 1966.

Constitutional Significance

1. Clarified Legislative Competence: The amendment dispelled doubts regarding Parliament’s authority to reorganise Union territories in the same manner as States, ensuring smooth constitutional operation when adjusting boundaries or creating new territories.
2. Enabled Future Territorial Reorganisation: The new Explanations made it possible to form new States or Union territories by merging parts of existing entities — a flexibility later used in reorganisations such as Himachal Pradesh (1971) and Chandigarh’s administrative arrangements.
3. Excluded Union Territories from the Proviso Procedure: Since Union territories have no independent legislatures (except where Parliament creates them under Article 239A), it would be impractical to seek their consent for reorganisation. The amendment explicitly exempted them from this requirement.
4. Reinforced Parliamentary Supremacy: It reaffirmed that the power to reorganise the political map of India lies solely with Parliament, subject only to procedural consultation where States are affected.
5. Closed a Constitutional Gap Left by the Seventh Amendment: The amendment effectively completed the process of integrating Union territories into India’s reorganisation framework, aligning Article 3 with post-1956 administrative realities.

 Broader Context and Legacy

The Eighteenth Amendment came at a time when territorial restructuring was still frequent—India was managing the aftereffects of linguistic reorganisation (1956) and integrating newly acquired territories such as Goa, Daman and Diu (1961) and Pondicherry (1962).
By clarifying Parliament’s powers over both States and Union territories, the amendment provided a constitutional foundation for future reorganisations, such as:

• The creation of Haryana (1966) and Chandigarh soon after the amendment;
• The subsequent establishment of new Union territories and States through later amendments and parliamentary laws.