Indian federalism has been called 'amphibian'. Discuss this in the context of the governance of Union Territories.

Indian federalism has been called "amphibian": it works as a federation in normal times and as a union in an emergency. The label is linked to State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), where the Supreme Court upheld the Union's wide powers under Article 356 [2]. Union Territories (UTs) are administered by the President under Article 239 [1], and they show this dual character most clearly.

Meaning of 'amphibian' federalism

• Federal mode: there are two tiers of government, separate Union and State Lists, and courts that protect this division [1].
• Unitary mode: during an Emergency (Art. 352) or President's Rule (Art. 356), the Union can override the States [1][2].
• Art. 1 counts States, UTs and acquired territories as India's territory [1]. However, only States have an assured federal status.

Amphibian character in UT governance

Unitary  <-------------------------------->  Quasi-federal
Ladakh, Lakshadweep   J&K UT, Puducherry      Delhi
(no legislature)      (legislature by law)    (Art. 239AA)

Fig.: Degrees of self-rule among UTs

• Unitary end: Ladakh became a UT without a legislature in 2019 and is run by a Lieutenant Governor (LG) [3]. For UTs such as Lakshadweep, the President makes regulations that have the force of an Act of Parliament (Art. 240) [1].
• Middle: Parliament can create UT legislatures by ordinary law (Art. 239A) [1]. The J&K UT has a legislature, but police and public order remain with the Centre [3].
• Quasi-federal end: Delhi's assembly has State-like powers except over police, public order and land. In 2023 the Supreme Court gave Delhi's elected government control of services [4].
• The mode can switch by statute: an Act of Parliament turned the State of J&K into two UTs [3]. An Ordinance took services back from Delhi within days of the verdict [4].

Assessment

• Merits: the flexibility suits strategic border regions and small islands, and it allows models tailored to each territory.
• Concerns: there is a democratic deficit where no legislature exists. The LG and the elected government clash in Delhi [4]. Safeguards made by executive regulation are easy to reverse, which feeds local demands for constitutional protection, as in Ladakh.

The amphibian label fits UTs even better than it fits States, because the Union can raise or lower their self-rule by law. This flexibility serves security needs, but it should come with a democratic voice. That means elected bodies with clearly listed subjects (as Art. 239AA provides) and safeguards written into the Constitution. Such calibrated devolution would honour the decentralised, cooperative spirit of Indian federalism.