STATE VERSUS UNION TERRITORY (DEMAND
OF STATEHOOD FOR DELHI)
Differences between States and Union Territories:
Why
this topic :
·The above topic
has been selected because of ongoing demand of statehood for Delhi NCR by the
newly emerged political party: AAP. There are several parameters on the basis
of which the political as well as administrative procedure is different in
states and Union Territories and any such difference in procedure of administration
can be a question in the upcoming UPSC Examinations.
· Questions may come like :
# The impact
on Delhi by granting statehood.
# Criteria
for granting statehood to Union Territory.
# Uniqueness
of Delhi among all Union Territories in India
# How union
Territories evolved and finally consists of 7 union territories.
And many more
related questions of similar kind can be framed.
Outline / Approach
to the topic:
Below points have been
explained in this article to get an
overview of the above topic and also to enable us to answer any
questions as written above:
# Evolution of Union Territories
during Pre- Independence period.
# Evolution of Union Territories in
pre-independence period:
# Administration of the Union Territories.
# Differences between States and
union Territories.
# Delhi: Special among all Union Territories.
# Demand of Statehood for Delhi.
The current political map of
India consists of twenty eight states
and seven union territories .
Under Article 1 of the Constitution; the territory of India consists of
three categories of territories:
1. Territories of the state;
2. Union Territories;
3. Territories that may be
acquired by Government of India at any time.
The Union Territories which
are present today are the partly outcome of British regime (pre-independence)
and partly as a by-product of the historic process of integration of former
states (post-independence).
Evolution of Union
Territories in pre-independence period:
1.
During British
regime; few areas on the basis of their backward or tribal nature were declared
as “Scheduled Districts” under the Schedule District Act, 1874. The main
objective of the act then was to provide a simple and good administration to
these areas. These areas were later known as Chief Commissioner Provinces.
2.
The Government of India Act,1919 divided
the British India provinces in two categories : I ) The governor provinces and
II ) Chief Commissioner Provinces
3.
Later in 1935 ; Government of India Act 1935
categorized the provinces in 3 categories :
·
The Governor’s
provinces (11 were in numbers)
·
The Chief
Commissioner Provinces (6 were in numbers)
·
The India States
4.
During that time
; there were 6 Chief commissioner provinces (British Baluchistan,Delhi,Ajmer-Merwara,Coorg,Andaman&Nicobar
and Panth Piploda ).
5. The Government
of India Act 1935 mentioned that the
: Chief Commissioner Provinces should be directly administered from the centre
by the Governor General acting to such an extent as he thinks fit through a
Chief Commissioner to be appointed by him in his discretion . This was the
provision which later became the basis
of Article 239 for the governance of Union Territories.
Evolution of Union
Territories in post-independence period:
1.
At the time of
Independence, India comprised of nine Governors’ provinces (Madras,
Bombay, West Bengal, United
Provinces, Bihar, East Punjab, Central Provinces; Assam
Orissa) and five Chief
Commissioners’ provinces (Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara, Panth Piploda,
Coorg and Andaman & Nicobar
Islands).
2.
In 1950, when the
Constitution was adopted, India was declared as a Union of states consisting of Part A, Part B, Part
C, and Part D states as per the first schedule of the Constitution.
3.
There were nine
States headed by Governors (Part A
States) and nine headed by Raj Pramukhs (Part B States). Ten (Part C States) were administered by the
President through Chief Commissioners. Then, there were Part D Territories which were administered by the President through
a Chief Commissioner although there was no provision for a legislative body or
a Council of Ministers.
Hence,
basically Constitution transferred the old Centrally Administered areas of 1935
to Part C states and Part D territories.
4.
Later on with the
recommendations of State Reorganization Commission ; India was divided into 14
states and 6 union territories(Andaman
and Nicobar Islands, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Laccadive Minicoy and Amindivi
Islands, Manipur and Tripura).
5.
Gradually with
regular changes in the boundaries and names of states; acquiring of territories
from colonial powers and converting them to Union Territories and states ;
presently India consists of 28 states and 7 Union Territories.
Administration of
Union Territories:
·
Articles 239 to 241 in Part VIII of the constitution deals with the Union Territories .Even
though all the Union Territories belong to one category, but there is no
uniformity in their administrative system.
·
Every Union
Territory is administered by the president acting through an administrator
appointed by him. An administrator of a union territory is an agent of the
president and not head of the state like a governor. The President can specify
the designation of an administrator like Lieutenant Governor or Administrator.
·
The Union
Territories of Puducherry and Delhi are provided with a legislative assembly
and a council of ministers headed by a chief minister. Remaining five union
territories do not have such political institutions.
·
The
administration for other five Union territories (except Delhi and Puducherry)
is governed by special enactments passed by the parliament and regulations made
under Article 240.
·
The Parliament is
empowered to make laws on any subject of the three lists (including the state
list) for the union territories.
·
The Parliament
can establish a high court for a union territory or put it under the
jurisdiction of the high court of adjacent state (except Delhi which has its
own HC )
|
Union Territories
|
Executive
|
Legislature
|
Judiciary
|
Year of Formation
|
|
Andaman & Nicobar
|
Lt. Governor
|
------------------
|
Calcutta High Court
|
1956
|
|
Chandigarh
|
Administrator
|
-----
|
Punjab & Haryana HC
|
1966
|
|
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
|
Administrator
|
------
|
Bombay High Court
|
1961
|
|
Daman and Diu
|
Administrator
|
-------
|
Bombay High Court
|
1987
|
|
Delhi
|
Lt. Governor,CM
|
Legislative Assembly
|
Delhi High Court
|
1952
|
|
Lakshadweep
|
Administrator
|
|
Kerala High Court
|
1963
|
|
Puducherry
|
Lt. Governor,CM
|
Legislative Assembly
|
Madras High Court
|
1962
|
Differences between States and Union Territories:
|
STATES
|
UNION TERRITORIES
|
|
The relationship with the Centre is federal.
|
The relationship with centre is unitary
|
|
Distribution of powers between states and Centre.
|
Under direct control and administration of the
Centre.
|
|
Have Autonomy
|
Do not have autonomy
|
|
Governor is Constitutional head of the state.
|
An administrator is an agent of the President.
|
|
Parliament cannot make laws on State List except
under extraordinary circumstances.
|
Parliament can make laws on any subject of three
lists in relation to the Union Territories.
|
Delhi (Special
Provisions among other Union Territories):
Due to its strategic
location, Delhi has been a seat of power of several empires in its long history
and same continued after independence also. At the time of independence Delhi
was a Chief Commissioner’s province
and became Part C state after the
adaption of Constitution.
In 1956, it became Union
Territory and was governed by an administrator appointed by the President and
called as Chief Commissioner.
Later on in 1960s, the demand
for democratic representative in Delhi arouses. The demand was partially fulfilled
by the Delhi Administration Act, 1966
where a Metropolitan Council and Executive Council were provided for the
administration purpose. The Metropolitan Council was headed by the Lt. Governor
to be appointed by the President under Article 239. It was a unicameral body
consisting of 56 elected members and 5 other nominated members by the
President.
Later on according to the
recommendations of Balkrishan Committee,
the 69th Constitutional
Amendment Act of 1991 provided a special
status to the Union Territory of Delhi and redesignated it as National Capital territory of Delhi and
the administrator was designated as Lieutenant Governor. It also provided a
legislative assembly and Council of Ministers for Delhi.
The assembly was empowered to
make laws on all matters of the state list and Concurrent list except three
matters of the state list: Public Order;
Police and Land.
The President appoints the
Chief Minister and on the advice of the Chief Minister appoints other
Ministers. The Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President. The
Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers aid and advise the Lt. Governor in
the exercise of his functions in relation to matters with respect to which the
Legislative Assembly has power to make laws.
The Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi Act 1991 provides for special provisions in case of
Finance Bills to be considered by the Delhi Legislative Assembly. In terms of
these provisions, a Bill or amendment shall not be introduced into, or moved
in, the Legislative Assembly except on the recommendation of the Lieutenant
Governor, if such Bill or amendment makes provision for any of the following
matters, namely:-
(a) The imposition,
abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax;
(b) The amendment of the
law with respect to any financial obligations undertaken or to be undertaken by the Government of the Capital;
(c) The appropriation of
moneys out of the consolidated fund of the Capital;
(d) The declaring of any
expenditure to be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of the Capital
(e) The receipt of money
on account of the Consolidated Fund of the Capital or the Public Account of the
Capital or the custody or issue of such money or the audit of the accounts of
the Capital.
Hence, all these
attributes make Delhi special and unique among all other Union territories.
Why Demand of
statehood for Delhi:
Although enjoying the special
status among all other Union Territories, the demand of fully fledged statehood
for Delhi is always on debate from past and is again the matter of the top
priority for current Delhi Government.
The demand of statehood for
Delhi arose in response to the shortcomings of Delhi Administration Act 1966 as
no legislative powers were resided to the Metropolitan Council.
As a result Balkrishan Committee was formed to
analyze the administrative measures for Delhi. The Commission submitted its
report which has recommended that Delhi should continue to be Union territory
with legislative Assembly.
The Police Act, 1978 which was specifically enacted for the National
Capital Territory of Delhi, provides for a Police Commissioner who works
directly under the Lt. Governor. The Chief Minister of the NCT and the Council
of Ministers thus do not have any powers with respect to public order and
functioning of the police in Delhi.
The demand to bring the Delhi
police under the purview of Delhi Government is the burning issue now a days in
Delhi.
Apart from these problems;
the major issue is because of very minimal power vested in hands of
representatives of people which have been enumerated below:
Political truths which prove that the Chief Minister to
be less powerful in Union Territory (as in Delhi):
·
In State
Government, the Governor is generally called a rubber stamp but in union
territories the Constitution has itself converted the Chief Minister into a
rubber stamp.
·
Generally the
Chief Minister is regarded as first among equals in the ministers in the
council but in Union Territory, the Chief Minister also leads a council which
can be superseded by the de facto head administrator.
·
In Union territories,
the real executive power reserved with the Administrator and his ultimate boss,
the President.
·
Article 239
says that the administrator can act “as he
thinks fit” while Union Territory Act 1963 states that “he can act in his discretion, and his decision shall be final” which
proves the superiority of the Administrator (or the President) over the Council
of Ministers headed by Chief Minister.
·
Article
239AA (4) says that in the case of difference of opinion between the
Lieutenant Governor and his Ministers on any matter , the Lt.Governor shall
refer it to the President for decision and act according to the decision given
thereon by the President.
·
The Administrator
is also made competent to make decisions in urgent situations although he is
under an obligation to refer it to the President.
·
Generally in
state it is very difficult to impose President’s rule while suspending the
Council of Ministers in a Union Territory is very simple.
·
While the
Governor appoints the Chief Minister in the states , the president appoints the
Chief Minister and Ministers for Union Territories who will hold office during
president’s pleasure.
·
The President can
also make rules for allocation of business to the Ministers.
All the above mentioned
points which reflect the minimal power residing with the democratic
representatives of the union territories; the constitution amendment also
divested executive and legislative powers over key subjects like public order , police , land and revenue from
the Delhi Union Territory and vested them to Union Government.
Hence although Delhi has been
enriched with the special provisions or status in India among other union
territories but the democratic institutions granted to Delhi needs to be reviewed
with better measures which could help both the administrator as well as
Executive to manage the social, economical and political affairs of Delhi.
References:
1.
Political and
Administrative Setup of Union Territories in India by Sudhir Kumar.
2.
Indian Polity by
M. Laxmikanth.
No comments:
Post a Comment