Article 1 of the constitution states that "India is a union of states". While not explicitly stating that constitution is federal, but nevertheless 'federal' is the spirit that permeates the organizing principle of the state. This means state and union are two faces of the same coin. One cannot deface the former without scarring the latter.
It is not my argument that the union government cannot reorganize a state. Like I stated earlier, Article 3 provides the rules and even though it recommends consulting the state assembly, but concurrence with the state assembly is not mandatory to go forward with the reorganization. This is not unprecedented. What is unprecedented is to reduce a state enjoying full statehood to a union territory. This is clearly against the federal spirit, because as the domicile of a state which has been demoted to union territory, the legislature that I elect is less than equal to the power enjoyed by the assemblies of full states. How can the domicile of the affected state be happy about his less than equal position, vis-a-vis domicile of other states.
Lack of Constitutional check or balance Is what this step not only unprecedented but also retrograde. Unless this action, as a result of the reorganization bill not withstanding a judicial review, is stayed by the SC there check against its future abuse.
Like a ruling party enjoying brute majority in both houses of the parliament, could impose Article 356 in any state and getaway with the murder of democracy, this reorganization bill has all the ominous signs of a new 'Article 356' in the making.