Article 1 of the Constitution describes the territory of India as comprising three categories: territories of the states, union territories, and territories that may be acquired by the Government of India.
The states in India are part of a federal system, meaning they share power with the Central government. In contrast, union territories are under the direct control and administration of the Central government, which is why they are also called “centrally administered territories.” This arrangement shows a difference from federalism because the relationship between the Central government and these territories is more unitary.Union Territories of India
Articles 239 to 241 of the Constitution talk about how union territories in India are governed. Even though all union territories are similar, they are managed in different ways.
Several issues have been raised regarding the functioning of Union Territories (UTs) in India:
Democratic Deficit: Residents of UTs often lack mechanisms to hold their leaders accountable, leading to a gap in democratic representation when compared to states.
Population vs. Status: The designation of a region as a UT or a state should not be based merely on population size or geographical area. Interestingly, some former UTs like Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, and Sikkim, which were later granted statehood, still have smaller populations than current UTs like Puducherry or Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
Structural Weakness: The constitutional framework of UTs makes them more vulnerable to interference from the central government, which can disrupt their functioning and autonomy.
Legislative Composition: UT legislatures may be fully elected or partly elected and partly nominated. This arrangement, particularly the nomination process, is often politicized, as seen in Puducherry. In one case, the courts questioned the need for consulting the Union government during appointments to the Assembly.
Limited Autonomy: UTs generally lack the level of self-governance that states enjoy. The powers vested in the Administrator or Lieutenant Governor are often excessive, undermining democratic governance.
Thus, the Union government must respect the original intent behind granting certain UTs their own legislatures and Councils of Ministers—namely, to fulfill the democratic aspirations of their people.
As the Supreme Court has emphasized, just because the Union Territories are administered by the central government does not mean they are part of it. UTs, although centrally managed, are distinct entities and must function with a degree of autonomy.
144 videos|732 docs|203 tests
|
1. What is a Union Territory in India? | ![]() |
2. How are Union Territories created in India? | ![]() |
3. What are the special provisions for Delhi as a Union Territory? | ![]() |
4. What is the role of the Lieutenant Governor in Union Territories? | ![]() |
5. Can Union Territories have their own legislative assemblies? | ![]() |