Which of the following statements regarding the federal system of India are correct? 1. All States of India have equal representation in the Rajya Sabha. 2. The consent of a State is not required for altering its boundaries. 3. There is no dual citizenship in India and citizens have only single citizenship of the Union. Select the correct answer using the code given below.

Introduction / Context:
This question examines important features of the Indian federal system, especially how it differs from classical federations like the United States. The issues of representation in the Rajya Sabha, alteration of State boundaries, and the idea of single versus dual citizenship reveal how power is shared between the Union and the States, and how India maintains unity in diversity. Understanding these points is crucial for exams that test Indian polity and constitutional structure.

Given Data / Assumptions:

The first statement claims that all States have equal representation in the Rajya Sabha.
The second statement claims that the consent of a State is not required for altering its boundaries.
The third statement claims that India has no dual citizenship and citizens enjoy only citizenship of the Union of India.
We have to determine which of these statements are correct according to the Constitution and established practice.

Concept / Approach:
In a classical federation like the United States, all States have equal representation in the Upper House. In India, however, representation in the Rajya Sabha is based broadly on population, so States do not enjoy equal seats. Regarding boundaries, the Constitution allows Parliament to reorganise States by law after obtaining the views of the concerned State legislature, but the State cannot veto the change. Finally, Indian citizenship is single and uniform; there is no separate State level citizenship as in some other federations. These three ideas help evaluate each statement.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate Statement 1. In India, the number of seats allotted to each State in the Rajya Sabha varies according to population. For example, Uttar Pradesh has many more seats than smaller States such as Sikkim. Therefore it is incorrect to say that all States have equal representation in the Rajya Sabha, so Statement 1 is wrong.Step 2: Evaluate Statement 2. Under Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution, Parliament can form new States, alter boundaries, or change names by law. The President refers the bill to the concerned State legislature for expressing its views, but the consent of the State is not binding on Parliament. This means that the consent of a State is not required for altering its boundaries, so Statement 2 is correct.Step 3: Evaluate Statement 3. Indian citizenship is single and uniform for the entire country. The Constitution does not provide for separate citizenship of the States, unlike some other countries where dual federal and State citizenship exists. Therefore the statement that there is no dual citizenship in India is correct.Step 4: Combine the results. Statements 2 and 3 are correct, while Statement 1 is incorrect, so the correct option is the combination 2 and 3 only.

Verification / Alternative check:
You can verify this by recalling common comparative polity points. Indian federalism is often described as a union of States with strong centralising features. Unequal State representation in the Rajya Sabha and the ability of Parliament to reorganise States without State consent are two examples of this central tilt. Textbooks on Indian polity also highlight that there is only one citizenship in India, reinforcing the idea of a strong Union. These cross checks confirm that Statements 2 and 3 are correct and Statement 1 is incorrect.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option 1, 2 and 3 is wrong because it includes Statement 1, which is clearly incorrect since representation in the Rajya Sabha is not equal for all States.
Option 1 and 3 only is wrong because it again treats Statement 1 as correct and ignores Statement 2, despite the Constitution giving Parliament the power to alter State boundaries without State consent.

Option 2 only is incorrect because it ignores Statement 3, even though the absence of dual citizenship is a central feature of the Indian system and is correctly stated in the question.

Common Pitfalls:
A frequent mistake is to assume that India must follow the same federal pattern as the United States, leading candidates to think that all States have equal representation in the Rajya Sabha. Another pitfall is misreading the consultation process for State reorganisation as a requirement of consent. The President seeks the views of the State legislature, but Parliament is not bound by those views. Candidates also sometimes confuse the existence of State laws and institutions with a separate State citizenship, which the Indian Constitution does not recognise. Keeping these distinctions clear will help in similar questions on Indian federalism.

Final Answer:
Only Statements 2 and 3 are correct, so the right answer is 2 and 3 only.