Law and You > Constitutional Law > The Union and Its Territories (Article 1)
Part I of the Constitution talks about Union and territories of India. At present, there are 9 Union territories and 28 states of India. The Part also deals with formation of a new state and changing the boundary of the present state.
Article 1 to 4 in Part-I of the Constitution deals with the Union and its Territory. The article describes India as a Union of States, the Constitution provides for a federal structure (States of India) with a unitary spirit.
Article 1:
Name and territory of the Union.—
(1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.
(2) The States and the territories thereof shall be as specified in the First Schedule.
(3) The territory of India shall comprise—
(a) the territories of the States;
(b) the Union territories specified in the First Schedule; and
(c) such other territories as may be acquired.
The general meaning of the term ‘union of States’ implies that India as a unitary form of government. Indian constitution adopted federalism, but Article 1 uses the expression “UNION” instead of “FEDERATION”. Dr. Babasaheb (Bhimrao) Ambedkar elaborated & defined the importance of the use of the expression “Union instead of the expression” federation as mentioned below.
“ …. but I can tell you why the Drafting Committee wanted to make it clear that though India was to be a Federation, the federation was not the result of an agreement by the States to join in the federation and that the Federation not being the result of an agreement no State has the right to secede from it. The Federation is a Union because it is indestructible. Though the country and the people can be divided into different States for the convenience of administration the country is one integral whole, its people a single people living under a single imperium derived from a single source. The Americans had to wage civil war to establish that the States have no right to secession and that their federation was indestructible. The Drafting Committee thought that it was better to make it clear at the outset rather than to leave it to speculation.”
Classification of Territory of India:
The term “India is a Union of State” was chosen as India was already a Union at the time of the Constituent Assembly debates. Describing India as a Union of States, the Constitution provides for a federal structure with a unitary spirit. Though the country and the people may be divided into different states for the convenience of administrative activities, the country is one integral whole.
Indian Union is not the result of a voluntary agreement among sovereign states, and the states of India do not enjoy the right to secede from the Union. The term ‘Union of India’ stands for the states that share federal powers with the Union Governments, while the term ’ Territory of India’ includes not only the states but all other units like the Union Territories also. The territory of India includes a larger area as compared to the union of India.
The territory of India covers the entire territory over which Indian sovereignty is exercised while the Union of India covers only the federal system.
Article 1 of the constitution classifies the territory of India into three categories i.e.:
- Territories of the States
- Union Territories
- Territories that may be acquired by the government of India at any time by purchase, treaty, cession, conquest or any other method.
The names of states and union territories and their territorial extent are mentioned in the first schedule of the constitution. It says India is a Union of 28 states & 9 centrally administrated Union Territories.
Name of 28 States and Their Capitals
| STATE | CAPITAL | |
| 1 | Andra Pradesh | Hyderabad, Amaravati |
| 2 | Arunachal Pradesh | Itanagar |
| 3 | Assam | Dispur |
| 4 | Bihar | Patna |
| 5 | Chhattisgarh | Raipur |
| 6 | Goa | Panaji |
| 7 | Gujarat | Gandhinagar |
| 8 | Haryana | Chandigarh |
| 9 | Himachal Pradesh | Shimla |
| 10 | Jharkhand | Ranchi |
| 11 | Karnataka | Bangalore |
| 12 | Kerala | Thiruvananthapuram |
| 13 | Madya Pradesh | Bhopal |
| 14 | Maharashtra | Mumbai |
| 15 | Manipur | Imphal |
| 16 | Meghalaya | Shillong |
| 17 | Mizoram | Aizawl |
| 18 | Nagaland | Kohima |
| 19 | Odisha | Bhubaneshwar |
| 20 | Punjab | Chandigarh |
| 21 | Rajasthan | Jaipur |
| 22 | Sikkim | Gangtok |
| 23 | Tamil Nadu | Chennai |
| 24 | Telagana | Hyderabad |
| 25 | Tripura | Agartala |
| 26 | Uttaranchal | Dehradun |
| 27 | Uttar Pradesh | Lucknow |
| 28 | West Bengal | Kolkata |
Name of 9 Union Territories and Their Capitals
| Union Territories | Capital | |
| 1 | Andaman and Nicobar Islands | Port Blair |
| 2 | Chandigarh | Chandigarh |
| 3 | Dadara and Nagar Haveli | Silvassa |
| 4 | Daman and Diu | Daman |
| 5 | Delhi | Delhi |
| 6 | Jammu and Kashmir | Srinagar and Jammu |
| 7 | Ladakh | Leh |
| 8 | Lakshadweep | Kavaratti |
| 9 | Pondicherry | Pondicherry |
The provision of the constitution pertaining to the state are applicable to all the states (except Jammu and Kashmir) in the Same manner, However the special provisions applicable to the states of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, and Goa override the general provision relating to the states as a class. Furthermore, the fifth and sixth schedule areas and tribal areas within the states.
Case Laws:
In Berubari Union (1) re, AIR 1960 SC 845 Case, the Court held that the Constitution contemplates changes of the territorial limits of the constituent states and gives no guarantee of their territorial integrity and also held that Article 1(3)(c) merely states a factual situation and does not confer a power on Parliament to acquire foreign territory and no cession of Indian territory can take place without constitutional amendment.
In Krimens Oil Mills v. Registrar of Companies AIR 1958 Mad 450 case, the court held that territory can be said to be acquired when the Indian Union acquires sovereignty over such territory.
In N. Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commr., Pondicherry, AIR 1963 SC 533 case, the apex court held that the expression ‘acquired’ [Article. 1 (3)(c)] should be taken to be a reference to ‘acquisition’ as understood in public international law. If there was any public notification, assertion or declaration by which the government of India had declared or treated a territory as part and parcel of India, the courts would be bound to recognize an ‘acquisition’ as having taken place, with the consequence that the territory would be part of the territory of the union within Article 1 (3) (c). A statement by the government of India that it did not consider a particular area to have been acquired by it is binding on the court. It does not matter how the Acquisition has been brought about. It may be by conquest, it may be by cession following treaty, it may be by the occupation of territory hitherto unoccupied by a recognized ruler or it may be under the terms of an agreement between two states or it may be by accretion. After independence, the cases of Sikkim, Goa, Daman and Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Pondicherry may be given as examples of acquisition.