Consider the following statements : 1. The Governor of Punjab is concurrently the Administrator of Chandigarh. 2. The Governor of Kerala is concurrently the Administrator of Lakshadweep. Which of the above statements is/are correct ?

1. Constitutional Status of Union Territories (basic)

To understand the Constitutional Status of Union Territories (UTs), we must first look at the unique structure of the Indian Union. Unlike States, which are constituent units of the federation and share a distribution of powers with the Centre, Union Territories are units that are directly under the control and administration of the Central Government. This is why they are often referred to as 'centrally administered territories.' The administrative framework for UTs is enshrined in Part VIII of the Constitution, specifically under Articles 239 to 241 M. Laxmikanth, Union Territories, p.411. Every Union Territory is administered by the President, acting through an Administrator appointed by him. It is vital to note that an Administrator of a UT is an agent of the President and not a titular head of state like a Governor M. Laxmikanth, Union Territories, p.411. The President has the flexibility to define the designation of these administrators; they are called 'Lieutenant Governors' in Delhi, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, while they are simply called 'Administrators' in Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, and Lakshadweep. Furthermore, the Constitution allows for specific administrative arrangements. For instance, the President can appoint the Governor of an adjoining State as the Administrator of a Union Territory. In such a case, the Governor exercises his functions as Administrator independently of his State Council of Ministers. A classic example of this is the Governor of Punjab, who concurrently serves as the Administrator of Chandigarh M. Laxmikanth, Union Territories, p.413. However, this is not a universal rule; for example, Lakshadweep is typically managed by a separate administrator (often an IAS officer) rather than the Governor of Kerala.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Union Territories, p.409; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Union Territories, p.411; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Union Territories, p.413

2. Evolution of UTs and the 7th Amendment (basic)

To understand why we have Union Territories (UTs) today, we have to look back at how India was organized at the time of independence. Initially, the 1950 Constitution classified Indian states into four categories: Part A (former British provinces), Part B (former princely states), Part C (chief commissioners' provinces), and Part D (Andaman and Nicobar Islands). This was a complex and somewhat clunky system inherited from colonial administrative needs M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, p. 409.

The real turning point came in 1956. Based on the recommendations of the Fazl Ali Commission, the government decided to simplify this structure. The 7th Constitutional Amendment Act (1956) and the States Reorganisation Act (1956) completely abolished the old four-fold classification. Part A and Part B states were merged or reorganized, and Part C states were either merged into adjoining states (like Ajmer and Bhopal) or converted into what we now call Union Territories D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, p. 309. These UTs were designed to be centrally administered because they were either too small to be states, economically weak, or strategically sensitive.

One fascinating aspect of this evolution is the flexibility it gave the President. Under the Constitution, every UT is administered by the President through an Administrator. However, the President also has the power to appoint the Governor of an adjoining State as the Administrator of a UT. When this happens, the Governor acts independently of their State Council of Ministers in their capacity as the UT's Administrator M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, p. 413. This explains why the Governor of Punjab, for instance, also looks after Chandigarh.

Sources: Indian Polity, Union Territories, p.409; Indian Polity, Union and Its Territory, p.53; Introduction to the Constitution of India, Administration of Union Territories and Acquired Territories, p.309; Indian Polity, Advisory Committees of Union Territories, p.413

3. Special Provisions for Delhi and Puducherry (intermediate)

Welcome back! In our previous steps, we looked at how the President manages Union Territories through an Administrator. However, Delhi and Puducherry (and more recently, Jammu & Kashmir) are special cases. Unlike other UTs, they possess their own Legislative Assemblies and Council of Ministers, giving them a hybrid structure that sits somewhere between a typical UT and a full-fledged State.

The most significant shift for Delhi came with the 69th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1991. This amendment inserted Article 239AA, which officially designated the UT as the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi and its administrator as the Lieutenant Governor (LG). M. Laxmikanth, Union Territories, p.412. While Delhi has a 70-member assembly directly elected by the people, its powers are specifically restricted. The Assembly can legislate on any matter in the State List or Concurrent List, except for three crucial areas: Public Order, Police, and Land. These three remain under the direct control of the Central Government through the LG.

Puducherry's setup is slightly different. Its legislature was created under Article 239A (introduced in 1962), which allows Parliament to create a legislature or a Council of Ministers for certain UTs. A unique feature shared by both Delhi and Puducherry is their participation in the election of the President of India, a privilege granted by the 70th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992. D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Tables, p.522.

Feature	NCT of Delhi	Puducherry
Constitutional Article	Article 239AA	Article 239A
Legislative Exclusions	Public Order, Police, and Land	No such explicit constitutional exclusions
Constitutional Failure	Article 239AB allows LG to report failure of machinery	Handled under Article 239A/Statutory provisions

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Union Territories, p.412; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Tables, p.522

4. President's Regulatory Powers (Article 240) (intermediate)

Under the Indian Constitution, while Parliament has the power to make laws for Union Territories (UTs) on any subject, the President is granted a specific legislative power under Article 240. This article empowers the President to make regulations for the "peace, progress, and good government" of certain UTs. This is not merely an executive order; a regulation made by the President under this article has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 41: Union Territories, p. 413.

The President currently exercises this power for the following five Union Territories:

• Andaman and Nicobar Islands
• Lakshadweep
• Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu
• Ladakh
• Puducherry (but with a specific condition)

It is important to note the special case of Puducherry. Since Puducherry has its own Legislative Assembly, the President can only make regulations for it when that Assembly is dissolved or suspended. Once the Assembly is active, the primary legislative power rests with the elected body and Parliament Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 16: Centre-State Relations, p. 145. Interestingly, Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir are not mentioned under Article 240, meaning the President does not hold this specific regulatory power over them in the same way.

The most potent aspect of Article 240 is that the President can repeal or amend any existing Act of Parliament that applies to these territories. This means the President’s regulatory power is co-extensive with the legislative power of Parliament for these specific regions Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Administration of Union Territories, p. 311.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 41: Union Territories, p.413; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth (7th ed.), Chapter 16: Centre-State Relations, p.145; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Administration of Union Territories and Acquired Territories, p.311

5. High Court Jurisdiction over UTs (Article 241) (intermediate)

In our constitutional scheme, providing judicial oversight for Union Territories (UTs) is a flexible process managed by Parliament. Under Article 241, Parliament has the authority to either constitute a high court for a Union Territory or declare any court in such a territory to be a high court for the purposes of the Constitution D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Administration of Union Territories and Acquired Territories, p.311. This means the existence and jurisdiction of high courts over UTs are entirely dependent on central legislation rather than being fixed by the Constitution itself.

Currently, the judicial landscape of UTs is quite diverse. Delhi stands as a unique case, being the only UT to have its own separate High Court since 1966. Following the reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir, the UTs of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh share a common High Court M. Laxmikanth, Indian Polity, High Court, p.353. For the remaining UTs, Parliament has exercised its power under Article 230 to extend the jurisdiction of neighboring state high courts to these territories. This ensures that even small territories have access to a high-ranking judicial body without the administrative burden of maintaining a full high court infrastructure locally.

To help you memorize the current arrangement, here is how the jurisdiction is distributed across the country:

Union Territory	High Court Jurisdiction
Andaman and Nicobar Islands	Calcutta High Court
Chandigarh	Punjab and Haryana High Court
Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu	Bombay High Court
Lakshadweep	Kerala High Court
Puducherry	Madras High Court

It is important to note that until Parliament passes a specific law to change these arrangements, the existing jurisdictions continue to apply D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Administration of Union Territories and Acquired Territories, p.311. This provides stability to the legal systems within these territories while leaving the door open for future administrative adjustments as the territories grow.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), High Court, p.353; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.), Administration of Union Territories and Acquired Territories, p.311

6. Article 239(2): Governor as UT Administrator (exam-level)

In our study of how Union Territories (UTs) are governed, we encounter a unique constitutional provision under Article 239(2). While the President typically appoints a dedicated Administrator or Lieutenant Governor for a UT, this article provides a flexible alternative: the President may appoint the Governor of an adjoining State to concurrently serve as the Administrator of that Union Territory. This provision was introduced by the 7th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1956 to ensure administrative efficiency in smaller or geographically linked territories Introduction to the Constitution of India, The State Executive, p.274.

The most critical aspect of this arrangement is the independence of the Governor’s functions. When a Governor wears this "second hat" as a UT Administrator, they do not act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers of the State they govern. Instead, they exercise their functions as an Administrator independently of the state cabinet. In this capacity, they act as a direct agent of the President, ensuring that the federal government's oversight of the UT remains unclouded by the political or executive priorities of the neighbouring state Introduction to the Constitution of India, The State Executive, p.274.

A classic real-world example of this is Chandigarh. By convention, the Governor of Punjab is concurrently appointed as the Administrator of Chandigarh. However, it is important to note that this is not a universal rule for all UTs. For instance, while Lakshadweep is near Kerala, it is administered by its own dedicated Administrator (usually an IAS officer) rather than the Governor of Kerala Indian Polity, Union Territories, p.413.

Sources: Introduction to the Constitution of India, The State Executive, p.274; Indian Polity, Union Territories, p.413

7. Specific Administrative Setups: Chandigarh vs. Others (exam-level)

While all Union Territories (UTs) are governed by the President through an Administrator, the specific identity and background of these administrators can differ based on regional requirements and historical contexts. A common point of confusion is whether the Governor of a neighboring state always manages the adjacent UT. The answer is no—this is a specific arrangement reserved for certain cases, most notably Chandigarh.

The Governor of Punjab concurrently functions as the Administrator of Chandigarh. This dual role is a unique setup where the constitutional head of a state also serves as the executive head of the UT. In contrast, other UTs without legislatures, like Lakshadweep or Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, are typically managed by a separate Administrator appointed by the President (usually a senior officer from the Indian Administrative Service). Unlike Chandigarh, the Governor of Kerala does not hold concurrent charge of Lakshadweep. Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 41, p.413.

Constitutionally, the President has the authority to appoint the Governor of a state as the administrator of an adjoining union territory. It is important to remember that when a Governor is tasked with this additional responsibility, they must act independently of their State Council of Ministers regarding the affairs of the UT. This ensures that the UT remains under the direct oversight of the Union government as per Article 239. Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 30, p.313.

Union Territory	Administrative Head Profile	Concurrent State Charge?
Chandigarh	Governor of Punjab	Yes
Lakshadweep	Independent Administrator (often IAS)	No
Delhi / Puducherry	Lieutenant Governor	No

Sources: Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 41: Union Territories, p.412-413; Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 30: Governor, p.313

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

This question tests your understanding of the constitutional framework of Union Territories (UTs) and the specific administrative arrangements under Article 239. You recently learned that while every UT is administered by the President through an Administrator, the Constitution allows for significant flexibility. Specifically, under Article 239(2), the President can appoint the Governor of a State as the Administrator of an adjacent Union Territory. In such cases, the Governor acts independently of their State Council of Ministers, exercising their functions in the UT as an agent of the President.

To arrive at the correct answer, you must distinguish between a constitutional possibility and an actual administrative practice. Statement 1 is a classic application of this rule: the Governor of Punjab serves concurrently as the Administrator of Chandigarh, an arrangement stemming from Chandigarh's unique status as a shared capital. However, Statement 2 is a common distractor. Although Kerala is the closest mainland state to Lakshadweep, the President appoints a separate Administrator (typically from the IAS or public life) for Lakshadweep, rather than vesting that power in the Kerala Governor. Therefore, the correct answer is (A) 1 only.

The trap UPSC uses here is over-generalization based on geographical proximity. Students often assume that because the Punjab-Chandigarh model exists, it must apply to all UTs adjacent to States. As explained in Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, while the President has the authority to link these roles, they are not mandated to do so. This question rewards the student who has moved beyond the general rule to memorize the specific institutional exceptions that define Indian federalism.