The proposal to rename Kerala to Keralam : A Constitutional Approach

A proposal to change the name of the State of Kerala to Keralam as reported by the Union Cabinet has resurrected debate on the constitutional procedure of changing the names of states in India. Although at first sight the change seems to be symbolic and linguistic, it is well-grounded in constitutional procedure to Article 3 of the Constitution of India.

Article 3 gives Parliament the authority to create new states, to amend borders and the name of any state. Nevertheless, it is a unilateral process. In case the proposal concerns a given state, the President has to submit the Bill to the affected State Legislature to give its own opinion within a given time. Notably, the view of the State Legislature does not bind Parliament. This is indicative of the quasi-federal order of India with Parliament still having supremacy over issues to do with the reorganisation of territories.

A resolution to change the name to Keralam (to match the English pronunciation with the Malayalam pronunciation) was previously adopted by the Legislative Assembly of Kerala. After the Cabinet will have approved the motion, it would need to amend the Constitution and change the First Schedule in the Constitution where the name of the states is listed. The Bill then has to be carried by a mere majority of both houses of parliament as a renaming under Article 3 does not necessitate any special majority as would otherwise be required under Article 368 to amend the constitution in a more structural way.

Constitutionally, the renaming poses certain questions on identity, federalism and cooperative governance. Such changes, even though symbolic, represent the assertion of culture and linguistic authenticity, which is safeguarded against under Article 29 and 30 on cultural rights. Meanwhile, the procedure highlights the superior role of the Parliament in the issue of territorial integrity.

In India, there has been a history of such changes, Bombay to Maharashtra (since Maharashtra city became the city of Mumbai), Madras to Tamil Nadu, and Orissa to Odisha, all of which were the result of changes made by legislation in parliament under Article 3. These precedents prove that renaming is a constitutional mechanism that is long-established and not a political anomaly.

Finally, the suggestion to change the name of Kerala into Keralam is a good example of constitutional federalism in action. It is a compromise between regional ambition and parliamentary process, making sure that even purely symbolic changes follow the rule of law. The change, regardless of it being cultural correction or political expression, makes the structured and consultative system within the design of the Indian constitution stronger.