Union Territories in India represent a unique facet of governance, blending elements of both central and state administration. Unlike states, Union Territories are directly governed by the central government, with varying degrees of autonomy granted to them. These territories play a crucial role in the country’s administrative framework, serving as centers of strategic importance, economic development, and cultural diversity.
Union Territories (UTs) are territories governed by the central administration of India and are designated as federal territories. They are overseen by the Union Government, with Lieutenant Governors (LGs) appointed by the President of India to serve as administrators of the UTs.
As of now, India comprises 8 Union Territories (UTs): Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Lakshadweep, and Puducherry.
In 2019, the Indian Parliament passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which led to the division of the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two separate Union Territories: the UT of Jammu and Kashmir and the UT of Ladakh. For further details on the previous status of Jammu & Kashmir, refer to the provided link.
Additionally, in 2020, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, along with Daman and Diu, were amalgamated into a unified Union Territory known as Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.
Need for UT’s
- Formation of UTs can be attributed to various factors such as their small size, distinctiveness in terms of economy, culture, and geography, financial weakness, political instability, or special status.
- Some territories were too small or different to function independently or be merged with surrounding states, necessitating administration by the Union Government.
- UTs like Daman and Diu were formerly under Portuguese rule, while Puducherry was under French rule, contributing to their unique cultural identities.
- Preserving the distinct cultural identity of UTs may require special provisions while ensuring effective governance.
- Geographically remote locations like Lakshadweep and Andaman and Nicobar Islands are strategically important, warranting Union government control for national security reasons.
- Delhi, as the administrative capital, and Chandigarh, serving as the administrative capital for both Haryana and Punjab, require Union government oversight due to their special status and significance.
- The number of states has increased from 14 to 28, and UTs have increased from six to eight since 1956.
- Some UTs, such as Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Sikkim, Goa, Arunachal Pradesh, and Mizoram, have transitioned into full states since the 1960s.
Constitutional Provisional
Articles 239 to 241 in Part VIII of the Constitution pertain to the administration of Union Territories (UTs), each having its own administrative system.
Initially, under Article 239, UTs were administered directly by the President through appointed administrators. In 1962, Article 239A was introduced, granting Parliament the authority to establish legislatures for certain UTs. This allowed for the formation of legislative bodies and Councils of Ministers in select UTs to address the democratic aspirations of their inhabitants. Furthermore, Article 239AA was incorporated into the Constitution in 1991 via the 69th Amendment Act, providing special provisions for the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Article 240 empowers the President to promulgate regulations for the peace, progress, and effective governance of UTs such as Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, and Puducherry. However, in the case of Puducherry, the President can enact regulations with legislative authority only when the assembly is suspended or dissolved. Regulations enacted by the President carry the same legal weight as acts of Parliament.
Additionally, Article 241 authorizes Parliament to establish a High Court for a UT or designate any court within a territory as a High Court for specific constitutional purposes. Presently, only the National Capital Territory of Delhi has a distinct High Court.
The administration of Union Territories is primarily overseen by the Centre through appointed administrators.
With the exception of Puducherry and Delhi, Union Territories do not possess their own legislatures. Consequently, Parliament retains the authority to enact laws on subjects listed in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution for all Union Territories, including Puducherry and Delhi.
The Ministry of Home Affairs serves as the central coordinating body for all Union Territory affairs, handling aspects such as legislation, financial matters, budgeting, services, and the appointment of administrators.
Issues with administration of UT
Undermining Democratic Rights: The democratic rights of residents in Union Territories (UTs) are compromised, as they lack mechanisms to hold their governing bodies accountable, unlike residents in states.
Approximately 3.68 crore Indians residing in the eight UTs lack the democratic privilege of having fully empowered assemblies, unlike residents in the 28 states.
Even in UTs with elected governments, their powers are significantly limited compared to states, often leaving them dependent on central government appointees.
Recent protests in Lakshadweep against administrative policies highlight how UT administrations may fail to represent citizens’ interests.
Outdated Criteria for UT Formation: Traditional criteria such as population or size are inadequate for determining whether a region merits UT or state status, as evidenced by former UTs like Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, and Sikkim becoming states despite smaller populations compared to current UTs like Puducherry and Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Claims of preserving distinct cultures in UTs like Daman and Diu or Puducherry are debatable, as these regions share cultural and linguistic ties with neighboring states.
Structural Weaknesses: UTs’ structural weaknesses within the constitutional framework facilitate central government interference, potentially destabilizing them.
Legislative Composition: UT legislatures are often composed of partly elected and partly nominated members, which undermines democratic representation.
The potential politicization of nomination processes, as seen in Puducherry, raises concerns about the legitimacy of nominated members.
Administrator’s Authority: UTs lack necessary autonomy due to extensive powers vested in the Administrator/Lieutenant Governor. Administrators have the authority to dispute decisions made by elected Councils of Ministers, ultimately decided upon by the President on the Union government’s advice. Despite judicial observations urging administrators to exercise their powers judiciously, conflicts between Lt. Governors and Chief Ministers persist, as seen in Puducherry and the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Also read about Scheduled Tribal Areas.