ePGP MOOCs: E-Content

SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO UNION TERRITORIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.​ Introduction
2.​ Administration of Union Territories
3.​ Legislative Power with respect to the Union Territories
4.​ Special Provisions with respect to Puducherry
5.​ The Government of Union Territories Act, 1963
6.​ Power of the President to make Regulations in respect of certain Union Territories
7.​ High Courts for Union Territories
8.​ Conclusion

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After going through this Chapter, you will be able to:

●​ Understand the concept of a Union Territory.

●​ Describe the President's role as the executive head as well as the role of an
administrator of a Union Territory.
●​ Understand the law regulating legislative power with respect to Union Territories.
●​ Understand and elaborate the provisions of the Government of Union Territories
Act, 1963.
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
●​ Describe the constitution and powers of the High Courts for Union Territories.

INTRODUCTION

Part VIII of the Constitution of India originally dealt with the government and administration of
Part C States.1 These States which fell outside the federal scheme of the Constitution were
centrally governed under Articles 239 and 240.2 The President administered them earlier through
an Administrator or a Lieutenant Governor.3 He had an overall authority in relation to the
governance of the State and was vested with the power of the executive head for each of them.
Parliament was given full and exclusive legislative competence4 for all of them. In exercise of its
exclusive legislative power, Parliament passed the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950, under which
it delegated the legislative powers in respect of them to the Central Government. The Central
Government could extend laws in force in any Part A State to any one or more of the Part C
States "with such restrictions and modifications as it thought fit."5 However, the Supreme Court
in the Reference Case6 held that Parliament could not delegate to the Government power to
amend and repeal the laws7 which were already in force. Following the advisory opinion of the
Court in the Reference Case, Parliament enacted the Government of Part C States Act, 1951
making provisions for setting up of the Legislative Assemblies in them. Under this enactment,
Parliament gave law making powers in respect of Lists II and III of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution to the newly established legislative bodies without surrendering its own
Constitutional responsibility. It continued to have concurrent authority and laws enacted by such
legislative bodies were subjected to the overriding effects of the Parliamentary legislation. The
rule established in Campbell v. Hall,8 that is, after the British Parliament would provide for

1
​ Part C States included Ajmer, Bhopal, Coorg, Delhi, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Kutch, Manipur,
Tripura and Vindhya Pradesh.
2
​ Satya Dev vs. Padam Singh, AIR 1954 SC 586.
3
​ In Part C States, the administration was done through a Chief Commissioner or a Lieutenant Governor,
prior to the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956.
4
​ The Constitution of India , Article 246(4).
5
​ See the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950, Section 2.
6
​ In re The Delhi Laws Act,1912 (the Reference Case), AIR 1951 SC 332.
7
​ Ibid.
8
​ (1774) 1 Cowp 204, 98 ER 1045.
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
establishment of a colonial legislature, it would itself not legislate in relation to that colony, did
not apply. After the creation of the legislatures under the Government of Part C States Act,

1951, the Parliament did not, normally legislate in respect of these States. Nevertheless, its
power remained intact and in the event of any inconsistency between a Parliamentary legislation
and a law of a Part C State, the former prevailed over the latter.9
Before 1956, the present-day Union Territories were characterized as Part C States. The States'
Reorganisation Commission10 in its report submitted in 1955 suggested that the Part C States be
converted into centrally administered territories as these States were neither financially viable
nor functionally efficient. Hence, the States' Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the Constitution
(Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 abolished the Part C States and created the present day Union
Territories.11

After the Reorganisation of States in 1956, the Part C States ceased to exist and some of them
also ceased to be separate units e.g. Bhopal was merged in the new State of Madhya Pradesh and
Ajmer in Rajasthan. Under the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, Article 1 and the
First Schedule to the Constitution were altered and Part VIII was amended. There remained a
number of centrally administered Territories described in the amended Schedule as the Union
Territories.12 Such centrally administered units do not form part of any State but have been kept
as separate and distinct entities because of several historical, cultural or political reasons. These
administrative units are designated as Union Territories.13 By subsequent amendments, there
have been some additions to the list of Union Territories, while some have been transferred from
this list to the category of States. The names of many a Territories, namely Himachal Pradesh,
Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Goa were omitted from the list of the Union
Territories because they attained Statehood and thus became the First Schedule constituent units
of the Union of India. There as at present 7 Union Territories, which are Andaman and Nicobar
9
​ [Link] Kagzi, The Constitution of India, (6th Edition, India Law House 2004) 752.
10
​ The States Reorganisation Commission was a body constituted by the Central Government of India in 1953
to recommend the reorganisation of state boundaries.
11
​ [Link], Indian Constitutional Law (6th Edition LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 2011) 507.
12
​ Kagzi (n 9).
13
​ Jain (n 11).
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
Islands, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Goa, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep (Laccadive
Minicoy, Amindive Islands), National Capital Territory (Delhi), Pondicherry or Puducherry.14

ADMINISTRATION OF UNION TERRITORIES

Under Article 239 of the Constitution, the Union Territories are administered by the President
acting through an Administrator to be appointed by him. But this does not mean that the Union
Territories become merged with the Central Government. They are centrally administered but
they retain their independent identity.15 However, any instruction or directive issued by the
Central Government or the President16 is binding on the administrator of the Union Territory.17 A
Union Territory is, therefore, administered directly by the Central Executive.
The Administrator functions as a delegate of the President and will have to act under the orders
of the President, that is, the Central Government.18 The administration of the Union Territories is
carried on by the President who does not function as the head of the Central Government but as
the head of the Union Territory under powers specially vested in him under Article 239 of the
Constitution thereby occupying a position analogous to that of a Governor in a State.19
A Governor of a State may also be appointed as the Administrator of a Union Territory adjoining
to that State.20 In that capacity, the Governor is to act independently of his Council of Ministers.

It has been held by the Supreme Court that the Administrator of a Union Territory is not a purely
Constitutional functionary. His position is somewhat different from that of a State Governor.21
The Administrator is a delegate of the President. He cannot thus be equated with a State
Governor. After differing with his Council of Ministers, the Administrator may act under orders
of the President.22 The Administrator thus is not a purely and solely Constitutional functionary.

14
‘Puducherry’ substituted for ‘Pondicherry’ by Act 44 of 2006, sec.5 w.e.f. Oct. 1, 2006.
15
​ Chandigarh Administration v. Surinder Kumar, (2004) 1 SCC 530.
16
​ [Link] v. Sivachanmugavelu, (2005) 3 SCC 110: AIR 2005 SC 1038.
17
​ See, Chandigarh Administration v. Surinder Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 992.
18
​ Govt. of NCT, Delhi v. All India Central Civil Accounts JAO’s Assn., (2002) 1 SCC 344, 345.
19
​ Govt. of NCT, Delhi v. All India Central Civil Accounts JAO’s Assn., (2002) 1 SCC 344, 345;
New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 2847.
20
​ The Constitution of India , Art. 239 (2).
21
​ Devji Vallabhbhai v. Administrator, Goa, Daman, Diu, AIR 1982 SC 1029.
22
​ Goa Sampling Employees’ Association v. [Link]., AIR 1985 SC 357.
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
In yet another case, the Supreme Court has held that the status of an Administrator is not similar
to that of the Governor or Government of a State.23

The President does not function as the head of the Central Government rather he functions as the
head of the Union Territory under powers specially vested in him under Art. 239 thereby
occupying a position analogous to the Governor of a State.24 But, the status of the Union
Territory is not akin to that of the States. The Supreme Court has observed in this connection,25
"though the Union Territory are centrally administered under the provisions of Article 239 they
do not become merged with the Central Government….."26

In Dilip Chowdhury v. Registrar Co-op. Societies, A and N Islands, Port Blair,27 it was held that
the replacement of the Chief Commissioner of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands by the
Lieutenant Governor as the Administrator of the Union Territory would entitle him to execute the
same functions as his predecessor without a specific amendment in the statute that confers power
on him.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Central Government is the appropriate Government under
Sec. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act to make a reference of an industrial dispute in a Union
Territory to a tribunal for adjudication.28

It is to be noted that out of the seven Union Territories, it is only in respect of Pondicherry/
Puducherry and Delhi that some democratic set-up is envisaged by the Constitution itself. The
other Union Territories are governed directly by the Centre under the provisions of Art. 239. The

23
​ Goa Assocn. v. General Superintendence Co., (1985) 1 SCC 206(paras. 14, 17).
24
​ New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 2847.
25
​ Govt. of NCT Delhi v. A.I.C.C.A., JAO’s Ass., AIR 2001 SC 3090, 3093.
26
​ Jain (n 11) 508.
27
​ AIR 2000 Cal 228.
28
​ Goa Sampling Employees’ Association v. [Link]., AIR 1985 SC 357.
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar, Lakshadweep, Dadar & Nagar Haveli, Daman and
Diu and Chandigarh have no legislatures.

LEGISLATIVE POWER WITH RESPECT TO THE UNION TERRITORIES

Under Art 246(4), Parliament can make a law for a Union Territory with respect to any matter,
even if it is one which is enumerated in the State List.29 Parliament can also legislate for Union
Territories under its residuary powers, viz. Art. 248 and Entry 97, List 1.30 Parliament thus has
plenary power to legislate for the Union Territory with regard to any subject.31 Moreover,
according to the Supreme Court, in the exercise of this power, Parliament is not fettered by
anything in the Entries in the State List or anything following there from.32 Even after a
Legislature is created for a Union Territory, Parliament shall possess paramount power to
legislate with respect to any matter included in List II, in relation to that State. In other words,
the Legislature of a Union Territory shall have no exclusive power with respect to List II as the
Legislatures of States possess.33

The Lieutenant Governor who acts as the successor to the Chief Commissioner possesses
legislative powers i.e. powers to promulgate ordinances34 in addition to executive powers as he is
the delegate of the President in the Territory so appointed.35 Moreover, under Art. 246(4), with
regard to the Union Territory, there is no distribution of legislative power.36 The three Lists have
29
​ See, Mithan Lal v. Delhi, AIR 1958 SC 682; Also see, In re Sea Customs case, AIR 1963 SC 1760.
30
​ Satpal & Co. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1979 SC 1550.
31
​ Jain (n 11) 509.
32
​ Mithan Lal v. State of Delhi, AIR 1958 SC 682 at 685.
33
​ Durga Das Basu, Constitutional Law of India, (8th Edition, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa 2008) 447.
34
​ The Constitution of India , Article 239B.
35
​ Andaman Wood Products India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 2001 Cal. 61.
36
​ Ram Kishore Sen v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 644.
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
no relevance so far as the Union Territory of Delhi is concerned as Parliament can make a law
with respect to any entry in any List.37 The Supreme Court has stated in Mithan Lal v. Delhi,38 in
this connection:

"To legislate for Part C States….the power of Parliament is plenary and absolute subject
only to such restrictions as are imposed by the Constitution".

Parliament is however a busy body and is always pressed for time and it is not, therefore,
possible for it to enact all the legislations in relation to matters falling in Lists II and III, which
may be essential and desirable for the governance of a Union Territory. Hence, to relieve
pressure on the Parliament, certain other provisions have been made.39

For all the Union Territories except Andamans and Lakshadweep, various Acts of Parliament40
provide that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend with
such restrictions and modifications as it thinks fit, to a Union Territory, any enactment which is
in force in a State at the date of the notification.41

Parliament has thus delegated some of its legislative power in relation to the Union Territory to
the Central Government with a view to lighten its own burden and save its time. This means that
the Central Government can extend, after adaptation, to a Union Territory any law in force in any
other area in the country. Such a provision was held valid in the Delhi Laws Act case.42

When a law prevalent in a State is extended to a Union Territory under this provision, and if the
said law is declared unconstitutional as being beyond the legislative competence of the enacting
State under Art. 246, the Act in the Union Territory will not be affected, for there the question is
to be judged not with reference to the power of the State Legislature but with reference to that of
Parliament. If Parliament can make such a law, it will be valid.43

37
​ Govt. Servant Co-op. House Building Socy. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 2636, 2638.
38
​ AIR 1958 SC 682, 685.
39
​ Jain (n 11) 509.
40
​ The Union Territories(Laws) Act, 1950, Sec.2; The Dadra and Nagar Haveli Act, 1961, Sec. 10; The
Daman and Diu(Administration) Act, 1962, Sec.6; The Pondicherry (Administration) Act, 1962, Sec.8; The Punjab
Re-organization Act, 1966, Sec. 87.
41
​ Jain (n 11) 510.
42
​ AIR 1951 SC 332.
43
​ Mithan Lal v. Delhi, AIR 1958 SC 682.
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
The Administrator after obtaining instructions from the President can also issue Ordinances for
the Union Territory under his general Ordinance-making power, during the recess of legislature.44
A Presidential ordinance authorizing the Delhi Administration to levy a special duty on the
import of country liquor in Delhi was held valid because the President's ordinance-making power
is co-extensive with Parliament's legislative power.45

SPECIAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO PUDUCHERRY

Article 239-A was added by the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962. According to
this Article, Parliament may by law create for the Union territory of Puducherry, a body to
function as a Legislature for the Union territory, or a Council of Ministers, or both with such
constitution, powers and functions as may be specified in the law.46 Any such law shall not be
deemed to be an amendment of this Constitution for the purposes of Article 368 notwithstanding
that it contains any provision which amends or has the effect of amending this Constitution.47
Puducherry has an Assembly which can make laws with respect to matters enumerated in the
State and the Concurrent Lists, but Parliament's overall power to pass laws for a Union Territory
on any subject is preserved. In case of any inconsistency between a law made by the Parliament
and that made by the Assembly, the former prevails. However, in the area of Concurrent List or
the State List, a law made by the Assembly prevails against a Parliamentary law if it has received
the assent of the President.48
Hence, Parliament's power to make laws in respect of Union Territories on matters in the State
List, even after the creation of Legislature as per this Article, shall remain unaffected.49

THE GOVERNMENT OF UNION TERRITORIES ACT, 1963

44
​ Article 239-B, Inserted by the Constitution (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Act, 1971.
45
​ Satpal & Co. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1979 SC 1550.
46
​ Article 239A(1).
47
​ Article 239A(2).
48
​ Arvind P Datar, Commentary on the Constitution of India, (2nd Edition, Wadhwa and Company Nagpur
2007) 1390.
49
​ Ibid.
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
The Parliament has enacted the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 in pursuance of Art.
239-A to provide for Legislative Assemblies and Council of Ministers for certain Union
Territories. In effect, this Act applies only to Puducherry as Art. 239-A is now confined only to
Puducherry50 and does not apply to any other Union Territory.51 Thus, some form of democracy
and Parliamentary government has been introduced by this Act in Puducherry.
The Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 created local legislatures for the Union
Territories of Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Tripura, Goa, Daman and Diu and Pondicherry and
Section 18 of the said Act conferred on those legislatures power to make laws for those
territories with reference to the matters enumerated in the State list or the Concurrent list.52 It
has been held that Section 3 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 that confers the
power on Parliament to create a body that shall act as the legislature for the Union Territory is
not violative of the Constitution.53

The position of the Administrator is similar to that of the Governor in the matter of assent to the
Bills passed by the legislature. The Territory has a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister
at its head to aid and advise the Administrator in exercise of his functions in relation to the
matters with respect to which the Assembly of the Union Territory has power to make laws
except in so far as he is required by or under the Act to act in his discretion or by or under any
law to exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial function.54

The Administrator and his Council of Ministers function under the general control of the
President. They must comply with the directions issued by the President. The Administrator is
not bound by the aid and advice of his Ministers when he is acting in his discretion. In case of
difference of opinion between the Administrator and the Council of Ministers, the matter is to be
referred to the President for decision.55

50
​ Substituted for ‘Pondicherry’ by the Pondicherry (Alteration of Name)Act, 2006 w.e.f. Oct. 1, 2006.
51
​ Substituted and ultimately removed reference to ‘for any of the Union Territories of Goa, Daman and Diu
and Pondicherry’ (w.e.f. May 30, 1987) , to ‘Himachal Pradesh’ (w.e.f. Jan. 1, 1987) , to ‘Manipur and Tripura’
(w.e.f. Jan. 1, 1972), to Mizoram and Andhra Pradesh (w.e.f. 1975)
52
​ Datar (n 47) 1390.
53
​ Manohar S. Prabhu And Uday Bhembre v. Union of India, 1987 (1) Bom CR 130
54
​ Jain (n 11) 511.
55
​ Ibid.
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
In case of an emergency, when the administration of a Union Territory cannot be carried on in
accordance with the Act, or for the proper administration of the Union Territory, the President
can suspend the operation of all or any provisions of the Act. In such a case, the Administrator
administers the Territory as the agent of the President under the provisions of Article 239 of the
Constitution.56 The power of Parliament, in relation to the making of laws for these Territories
remains untouched, subject only to the practice of its not making laws in respect of the
Territories for which it has itself established Legislatures. The legislative power of a Territorial
Legislature is derived statutorily, and therefore, is neither plenary,57 nor exclusive. It does not
limit the power conferred by the Constitution on Parliament to make laws with respect to any
matter for a Union Territory. Its laws can relate to the matter enumerated in the State List, or the
Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution in so far as any such matter is
applicable in relation to Territories. However, its legislative authority is at best concurrent; and a
territorial law is void only if it is repugnant to any provisions of an earlier law made by
Parliament with respect to that matter.58 A bill passed by the Territorial Assembly may be
assented to by the Administrator or else is required to be reserved for the President's
consideration.

POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO MAKE REGULATIONS IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN

UNION TERRITORIES

Under Article 240, the President has been given the power to make regulations for the peace,
progress and good government of certain Union territories.59 However, the President has no
regulation making power vis-à-vis the Union Territory of Chandigarh.60
Moreover, when a legislature is created under Article 239A for the Union territory of
Puducherry, the President shall not make any regulation for the peace, progress and good
government of that Union territory with effect from the date appointed for the first meeting of the
Legislature.61
56
​ Ibid.
57
​ Section 15.
58
​ Section 18/Section 21- The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Act, 1971.
59
​ The Union Territories under Article 240(1) are the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and
Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu and Puducherry.
60
​ Ibid. Also see, Jain (n 11) 509.
61
​ First Proviso to Article 240(1).
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
In the event of dissolution of the legislature for the Union territory of Puducherry, or in the event
of the suspension of the functioning of such legislature on account of any action taken under any
such law as is referred to in clause (1) of Article 239A, the President may, during the period of
such dissolution or suspension, make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of
that Union territory.62
A Regulation made by the President has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament. A
Regulation may even repeal or amend an Act of Parliament, or any other law, applicable to the
Union Territory concerned.63 The Regulation-making power of the President is plenary and a
Regulation can be made for a Union Territory on all subjects on which Parliament can make
laws. Thus, a Regulation can be made for any matter falling in List I, List II or List III.64

The issue is such that since these are small territories, hence Parliament hardly has sufficient
time to hold threadbare discussions before legislating for a Union Territory. To require
Parliament to specifically legislate for these Territories will put a disproportionate pressure on
Parliamentary time.

Under Art. 73(1) (a), the executive power of the Union Government is co-extensive with the
legislative powers of the Parliament. Consequently, the Union Government can validly issue
executive directions to the Administrator of a Union Territory. In the absence of conflict between
a direction issued by the Union Government and a Presidential Regulation issued under Art. 240,
the Administrator is bound to execute the directions of the Union Government.65

In T.M. Kanniyan vs. Income Tax Officer, Pondicherry,66 it was held that the Taxation Laws
(Extension to Union Territories) Regulation, 1963 is intra vires the powers of the President under
Article 240. The Court observed that in the exercise of powers under Articles 240, the President
could make Regulation No. 3 of 1963, extending the Income Tax Act 1961 and other laws to the
Union Territories. The plea that the President cannot make a law with respect to income tax in
the absence of an express grant of such a power was not accepted as correct.67 The contention

62
​ Second Proviso to Article 240(2).
63
​ Art. 240 (2).
64
​ [Link] v. [Link], Pondicherry, AIR 1968 SC 637.
65
​ J. Fernandes & Co. v. Dy. Chief Controller, AIR 1975 SC 1208.
66
​ AIR 1968 SC 637.
67
​ Datar (n 47) 1396.
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
that under Article 240, the President can make Regulations limited to the subject of law and
order only was also not accepted. The words 'peace, order and good governance' in Article 240
and similar expressions are words of very wide import giving wide discretion to the President to
make Regulations with reference to the Union Territory occupying the same field on which
Parliament can also legislate. Such over lapping of powers could not lead to clash between the
President and the Parliament. The power of the President to make Regulations ceases when a
legislature for the territory is created with effect from the date appointed for its

first meeting.68 But, until such legislature is created, the President retains his full power to make
Regulations for those Territories.69 The proviso does not act as a fetter on the general power of
the President to make Regulations for the Union Territory, when the legislature for that territory
is dissolved or suspended under Art.239-A. Therefore, the proviso to Article 240(1) on its true
construction does not fetter the power of the President to make regulations for any of the Union
Territory specified in Article 240(1) including Pondicherry as long as no legislature is created for
the territory.70 The power to make regulations by the President under Article 240(2) is fairly
large and he can repeal or amend any Act made by Parliament or any other law which is
applicable to the State territory. Such regulations will have the same force and effect as an Act
of Parliament.71
In Dilip Chowdhury v. Registrar Co-op. Societies, A and D Islands, Port Blair,72 the Lieutenant
Governor appointed as the Administrator of a Union Territory was held to be competent to
legislate and frame regulations for the collection of octroi by the Municipality. Articles 240 has
been amended several times – by the Constitution (Seventh, Tenth, Twelfth, Fourteenth,
Twenty-seventh and Thirty-seventh Amendment) Acts and by various Acts by which Union
Territories were made States. As the Article stands, it empowers the President to make
regulations for the good governance of the Union Territories specified in clause (1). But this

68
​ The Constitution of India, Article 240 (1), proviso.
69
​ Datar (n 47) 1397.
70
​ Kanniyan T.M. v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 637.
71
​ The Constitution of India, Art. 240 (2). Also see, Pushpa S v. Sivachanmugavelu, AIR 2005 SC 1038.
72
​ AIR 2000 Cal 228.
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
power of the President will remain suspended so long as the legislature functions in Pondicherry
and will revive as soon as such legislature is suspended or dissolved.73

HIGH COURTS FOR UNION TERRITORIES

Parliament may by law constitute a High Court for a Union Territory or declare any court in any
Territory to be a High Court.74 The Constitutional provisions applicable to the High Courts in the
States would apply to the High Courts of the Union Territory as well with such modifications or
exceptions as Parliament may by law provide.75

Further, the Parliament may extend or exclude the jurisdiction of any High Court to or from any
Union Territory.76 Thus, Chandigarh falls under the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court and Delhi has a separate High Court of its own. Puducherry falls under the jurisdiction of
the Madras High Court. The Kerala High Court exercises jurisdiction over Lakshadweep and the
Calcutta High Court over the Andamans. By the High Court at Bombay (Extension of
Jurisdiction Act), 1981, the High Court of Bombay has been made a common High Court for the
States of Maharashtra and Goa and the Union Territory of Daman and Diu.77

73
​ Basu (n 32) 453.
74
​ The Constitution of India, Art. 241(1).
75
​ Ibid., Art. 241(2).
76
​ Ibid., Art. 241 (4).
77
​ Jain (n 11) 511.
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
As far as Union Territories are concerned, by virtue of Article 241, Parliament alone has power
to constitute a High Court for all or any purposes of the Constitution. This power to constitute a
High Court for a Union Territory necessarily includes the power of defining, enlarging, altering,
amending and diminishing the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction including the power to try
cases or matters, which can be dealt with by a Court of civil or criminal jurisdiction. As a result,
the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is not competent to pass any
legislation affecting the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court.78
For the purposes of appointment, elevation or transfer there can be no distinction between a
Judge of a High Court of any State and a Judge of a High Court of a Union Territory. Further, no
High Court can claim any superiority over the other, either on the basis of its situation or on the
basis that it is a successor to a High Court which was functioning in a Province immediately
before the commencement of the Constitution or on the basis of the extent of its territorial
jurisdiction. All the High Courts have the same status under the Constitution.79

CONCLUSION

The political and constitutional position of the Union Territories is not equal to those of the
States of the Union. The territorial units are outside the federal framework of the Union of India.
The rule of distribution of powers applicable between the Union and the States does not apply
with respect to Union Territories. Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter
notwithstanding that such matter is a matter enumerated in the State List.80 Moreover, the
President can make legislation in the form of Regulations. The Administrator has the power to
promulgate an ordinance when the Territorial Legislature is not in session, provided, the prior
instructions from the President are obtained as to any proposed immediate legislative action.81
Neither the Union Territories derive their legislative or executive powers from the Constitution,
nor they can claim any privilege under:
(i)​ Proviso to Article 3- for expression of views on a reorganization scheme; or

78
​ Geetika Panwar v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, AIR 2003 Del 317(FB).
79
​ Deen Dayal T. v. Union of India, AIR 1991 AP 307.
80
​ The Constitution of India, Article 245 and 246(4).
81
​ Ibid., Art.239-B, Also see, Kagzi (n 9) 753.
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
(ii)​ Article 55- for membership of the Presidential Electoral College in respect of
members of the Territorial Assemblies.
(iii)​ Articles 245-248 – in respect of legislative powers on the basis of the federal rule
of distribution of powers; or
​ (iv)​Article 368- for ratification of a constitutional amendment bill.

These territories are to be administered directly by the President. He acts through a Lieutenant
Governor for each of Delhi, Daman Diu, and Puducherry and through an Administrator for each
of the other Territories. Under Article 239, the President can also appoint the Governor of a
neighbouring State as the Administrator for a Territory and require him to act in relation to the
Territory independently of his responsibilities for the State of which he happens to be the
Governor, and without aid and advice of the State Council of Ministers.

The administration in all the Territories is not organized similarly. After the passing of the
Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962 and the Constitution (Twenty-Seventh
Amendment) Act, 1971, the Union Territories other than Delhi are for purposes of
administration, categorized in two groups:
(i)​ Goa, Daman and Diu, Mizoram and Pondicherry; and
(ii)​ Chandigarh, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep (Laccadive, Minicoy
and Amindivi Islands) and Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

The Territories in the first group are relatively at an advanced stage both administratively and
politically. Article 239-A applies to them, and therefore, since after the passing of the Union
Territories Administration Act, 1963, the legislatures and Councils of Ministers have been
established therein. The second group constitutes of what may be called Regulation Territories,
because under Article 240 the President “may make regulations for peace, progress and good
government” therein. The President’s power of regulation making is recognized for all the
territories, except Delhi; and if in a Territory a Legislature is set up the President’s power in this
respect remains under suspension.82

82
​ Kagzi (n 9) 754.
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content

Interesting facts about Union Territories:

●​ There are seven Union Territories, including Delhi, the capital of India, and Chandigarh,
the joint capital of Punjab and Haryana.
●​ Delhi and Puducherry (Pondicherry) operate somewhat differently from the other five.
Delhi and Puducherry were given partial statehood and Delhi was redefined as the
National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT). Delhi and Puducherry have their own elected
legislative assemblies and the executive councils of ministers with partially state-like
functions.
●​ Union Territories of India have special rights and status due to their constitutional
formation and development.
●​ The Union Territories could be changed to states in the future for more efficient
administrative control
●​ Daman and Diu hosts the Festa de Diu, Asia's longest beach festival at over three months
long.
●​ Dadra and Nagar Haveli was the first ex-Portuguese colony in India to accede to the
Indian Union.
●​ Pondicherry consists of four enclaves - Pondicherry proper and Karaikal, enclosed by
Tamil Nadu; Yanam, enclosed by Andhra Pradesh; and Mahe enclosed by Kerala.
●​ Andaman and Nicobar Islands are home to the Sentinelese, the only known paleolithic
people in the world, who are also the most isolated and one of the last uncontacted tribes
anywhere.
●​ Lakshadweep is home to a 96% muslim population, the largest such proportion among Indian
territories.
●​ Chandigarh is the largest work (by scale) of famed modernist architect, Le Corbusier.
●​ Delhi is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities on the planet, with record
indicating settlements dating back to 2000 BCE.
Points to ponder:

●​ Union Territories in India are those regions that are too small to be a state and too unique to be

merged as a part of an another state.

●​ Too far: Take the case of Andaman & Nicobar islands. It is too distant from any Indian state

and it is not feasible to be managed by another state. However, it is not big enough to be a state of
 ePGP MOOCs: E-Content
its own. Thus, the Central Government manages that territory by providing a local representative

who will represent the region's interests. Same is the case of Lakshadweep islands.

●​ Have a different colonial heritage: Pondicherry was a French colony, while Daman & Diu,

Dadra & Nagar Haveli were all Portuguese colonies. For centuries, these were managed with a

different language, different culture and different system. They didn't want to join the nearby

states that were British colonies and with very different systems.

●​ Special status: Chandigarh is a major city that was claimed by both Punjab and Haryana when

these states were divided in 1966. Since, neither State wanted to give up, the Central Government

made it a UT with a neutral ownership. In case of Delhi, it is a capital region and thus has a

special status.