Page:29357 2016 1 1501 44512 Judgement 11-May-2023.pdf/87

PART L which would exclude its application to Union territories. Rather, the application of the inclusive definition of “State” as provided under Clause 3(58) would render the constitutional scheme envisaged for Union Territories workable.

(b)Omission in Part XIV by the 1956 Constitution Amendment

133. The Union of India has argued that services for a Union Territory are not contemplated in Part XIV of the Constitution because of the conscious omissions by the 1956 Constitution Amendment in Part XIV. There are two prongs to this argument: (i) the words “Part A States” and “Part B States” in Article 308 were substituted by the word “State”, simpliciter, instead of States and Union territories; and (ii) while the term ‘Raj Pramukh’ was omitted in different Articles in Part XIV, the term ‘Administrator’ was not added.

134. Under erstwhile Article 239, the President occupied in regard to Part C States, a position analogous to that of a Governor in Part A States and of a Rajpramukh in Part B States. Unamended Article 239 envisaged the administration of Part C States by the President through a Chief Commissioner or a Lieutenant Governor to be appointed by them or through the Government of a neighbouring State.

135. The 1956 Constitution amendment was adopted to implement the provisions of the States Re-organization Act 1956. The Seventh Amendment abrogated the constitutional distinction between Part A, B and C States, and abolished the institution of the Rajpramukh on the abrogation of Part B States. In terms of Section 29 of the 1956 Constitution amendment, Parliament provided for “consequential and minor amendments and repeals in the Constitution” as directed