Article 239

Article 239 of the Indian Constitution forms the cornerstone for the governance and administration of Union territories in India. It establishes the constitutional framework under which these regions, distinct from states, are directly governed by the Central Government. The article embodies the intent of the Constitution’s framers to provide a uniform system of administration for territories that are either too small, strategically sensitive, or otherwise unsuitable for full statehood.

Background and Context

The concept of Union territories emerged from the need to ensure direct control of certain regions by the Union Government for administrative convenience and national interests. When the Constitution came into force in 1950, India had Part C and Part D states that were centrally administered. The Seventh Amendment Act of 1956 reorganised these areas, introducing the term Union territories and placing them under the direct control of the President of India under Article 239.
Union territories thus occupy a unique position in India’s federal structure — they are neither fully autonomous like states nor entirely centralised like departments of the Union Government. This dual character gives rise to special administrative and constitutional mechanisms.

Administration by the President

Clause (1) of Article 239 vests the administration of every Union territory in the President of India, who acts through an appointed administrator. The designation of such administrators may vary, such as Lieutenant Governor, Chief Commissioner, or Administrator, as determined by the President.
In practice, the administrator represents the President and exercises executive authority over the Union territory. The powers of the administrator are defined either by Parliamentary legislation or by presidential regulations, ensuring that the Central Government retains control over the administration of these regions.
The President may also issue directions regarding any matter related to the governance of the Union territory, and the administrator must comply with these instructions. This structure allows flexibility while maintaining the primacy of the Union Government.

Appointment of State Governors as Administrators

Under Clause (2) of Article 239, the President may appoint the Governor of a state as the administrator of an adjoining Union territory. In such instances, the Governor acts in his capacity as the administrator independently of the state’s Council of Ministers. This provision promotes administrative efficiency and coordination between a state and its neighbouring Union territory.
For example, the Governor of Punjab has often been appointed as the Administrator of Chandigarh, ensuring a cohesive administrative approach due to their geographical proximity and shared interests.

Key Features of Union Territories

Union territories possess several distinguishing characteristics:

• They are governed directly by the Central Government through administrators.
• The President of India holds the ultimate executive authority.
• Administrators function as representatives of the President, not of any local government.
• The extent of legislative power within a Union territory varies depending on whether it has its own legislature (as in Delhi and Puducherry) or is governed directly by Parliament and the President.

Judicial Interpretations and Case Laws

The Supreme Court of India has interpreted Article 239 on multiple occasions, clarifying the roles and limits of administrative authority:

• G. K. Sinha v. Union of India (1970): Affirmed that the President’s power to appoint administrators is absolute and not subject to judicial review.
• K. K. Verma v. Union of India (1975): Held that administrators act independently of state governments and are accountable solely to the President.
• State of Delhi v. Union of India (2018): A landmark judgement that defined the relationship between the Lieutenant Governor and the elected government of Delhi. The Court ruled that while the Lieutenant Governor must be informed of all decisions, he cannot act independently of the Council of Ministers except in exceptional cases.

These judicial interpretations have shaped the balance of power between elected representatives and administrators in Union territories.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Several other provisions complement Article 239:

• Article 240: Authorises the President to make regulations for the peace, progress, and good governance of specific Union territories, including the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, and others without legislatures.
• Article 241: Provides for the establishment of High Courts for Union territories or extends the jurisdiction of existing High Courts to these regions.

Together, these provisions ensure that Union territories have both executive and judicial structures tailored to their specific administrative requirements.

Administrative Structure of Union Territories

The administrative arrangements of Union territories differ based on their constitutional status:

• Delhi and Puducherry possess legislative assemblies with powers to enact laws on subjects in the State List and Concurrent List, except those related to public order, police, and land.
• Other Union territories, such as Lakshadweep, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and Chandigarh, are governed directly by the President through administrators.
• Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, following the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, were reorganised into two Union territories, with Jammu and Kashmir having a legislative assembly.

Legislative Framework and Powers

Parliament holds exclusive power to make laws for Union territories on any matter enumerated in the Union or Concurrent Lists. Additionally, the President’s regulations under Article 240 have the force of law.
Where a Union territory has a legislature, laws enacted by it require the President’s assent. This ensures a balance between local representation and central oversight, preserving national interests while allowing limited self-governance.

Challenges in Governance

Despite their administrative simplicity, Union territories face several governance challenges:

• Limited autonomy: Administrators often wield significant power, leading to friction with elected representatives in territories like Delhi and Puducherry.
• Representation issues: Residents of Union territories may feel underrepresented in national decision-making due to the absence of full statehood.
• Central dominance: Frequent interventions by the Union Government can sometimes undermine local governance.
• Judicial disputes: Ambiguities in administrative powers have led to recurring legal confrontations, particularly in Delhi.

These challenges highlight the evolving nature of India’s federal dynamics and the need for clearer constitutional boundaries.

Recent Developments and Reforms

Recent political and administrative reforms have reshaped the Union territory framework:

• In 2019, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act bifurcated the former state into the Union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh.
• In 2020, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu were merged into a single Union territory.
• Discussions continue regarding greater autonomy for certain Union territories to enhance administrative efficiency and democratic representation.