Structural fragility of UTs

Several Pondicherry legislative assembly members resigned earlier. These resignations follow a trend common among Legislative Assembly representatives. Such resignations drastically weaken the current party’s strength in the House, resulting in the government’s demise.

Generally, these resignations are just made by governing parties in regions that criticize the current government at the Centre.

Nevertheless, it is hardly the sole manner in which the appointed administrations of Union territory are jeopardised. Several legal, as well as constitutional measures, including the composition of the legislature, administrator’s power, and so on, highlight the structural vulnerability of Union Territories as Indian federation divisions.

Structural Fragility of UTs

Composition of the Legislature 

• Under the composition of the legislature, Article 239A had been added in the year 1962 via the 14th Constitutional Amendment Act to allow Parliament to construct legislatures representing the Union territories. 
• The Government of Union Territories Act, introduced in the year1963 was adopted underneath this clause by the parliament.
• As a result of this statute, a simple adjustment to the Government of Union Territories Act of the year 1963 can form a legislature having over half of its members being elected.
• Nevertheless, the issue regarding how a House dominated by nominations can advance representational democracy continues to remain unanswered.

Issue of Nomination 

• The Government of Union Territories Act establishes a thirty three-member House for Pondicherry, with the National Government appointing three members.
• As a result, whenever the central government selected three Assembly representatives before notifying the state, this was legally challenged.
• In the particular instance of K. Lakshminarayanan Vs. Indian Union, in the year 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the central government is indeed not obliged to confer with the State authority before proposing representatives to the Assembly, and therefore that nominated representatives carry the same voting rights as the members elected.

Arbitrary nature in Nomination 

• The Rajya Sabha has a procedure for nominations (as per Article 80). All the domains wherein they shall be nominated are specified within that Article.
• The goal of this candidacy is to allow the House to rely on the experience of those notable members who have been nominated, thereby enriching the House discourse.
• Nevertheless, no such condition is specified under the Government of Union Territories Act or even under Article 239A in the context of election to the Pondicherry Assembly.
• As a result, the statute encourages arbitrariness when it comes to naming representatives to the Union Territory legislature, which ultimately lead to issue in nomination procedure.

Administrator’s Power

• The Union Territories have never been provided with a genuinely democratic structure with the essential independence. 
• The administrator’s power clashes with the chosen administration of Union Territories with a legislature.
• Section 44 part of the Government of Union Territories Act, as well as Article 239 AA(4) under the Constitution, provide the administrator with the authority to voice dissatisfaction and submit the problem to the President.
• On the recommendation of the Central government, the decision is made by the President. As a result, the central government is ultimately responsible for settling the dispute.
• This is exemplified in the NCT Of Delhi, where ministers frequently protest regarding the Lt. Governor’s approach toward non-cooperative democracy.

Way Forward

Practising cooperative democracy 

• In the national capital Delhi Vs. Indian Union in the year 2019, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench stated that the administrator’s power to obstruct the workings of the appointed government in the union territories is unlawful and should only be used if all other strategies of resolving disputes have ceased.
• Unfortunately, the text and spirit of this ruling have not been followed. 
• As a result, both the Union Territories as well as the government must adopt a cooperative federalist mindset.

Essential Reforms

• The legislative and constitutional requirements must be amended to provide effective independence to the administrations of union territories.

Conclusion

The Union administration must respect the reasons why the Union Territories were judged appropriate to give certain of the UTs a legislature as well as a Cabinet of Ministers. The purported objective is to meet the peoples’ democratic aspirations in these regions.

In this regard, the Central authorities should implement the Supreme Court’s comment that the governance of UTs is under the Central government, yet that would not imply the UTs to be amalgamated with the National government. They are governed centrally yet preserve their autonomy.

In order to eliminate the various structural fragilities including the composition of the legislature or the administration’s power, strict actions are needed to be taken.