Centre amends Inter-State Council rules: UT LGs to be part of meetings if President’s rule imposed
The President amended the Inter-State Council Order to allow the lieutenant governors of Puducherry, Jammu and Kashmir, and Delhi to attend Council meetings when President's rule (or its territorial equivalent) is imposed in these Union Territories
The Ministry of Home Affairs notified the amendment on September 9, 2026, with publication following on September 14, 2026
The amendment replaces the earlier 1990 proviso — which covered only state Governors during an Article 356 proclamation — with a four-part provision separately addressing states, Puducherry, Jammu and Kashmir, and Delhi
The change follows the 2019 reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territories, which had left the original Council rules outdated for the new UT structure
The Inter-State Council (Article 263)
The Inter-State Council is a non-permanent constitutional body that the President may establish under Article 263 of the Constitution whenever it appears that the public interest would be served by its establishment. It was actually constituted in 1990 through a Presidential Order, implementing a long-pending recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations (1983-88), which had wanted it made a permanent body.
Key Details
- Composition (per the 1990 Order): Prime Minister (Chairman); Chief Ministers of all states; Chief Ministers/Administrators of Union Territories; six Union Cabinet Ministers (including the Home Minister) nominated by the PM
- Article 263 empowers the Council to inquire into and advise on inter-state disputes, investigate subjects of common interest to the Union and states, and recommend better coordination of policy and action
- It is a recommendatory body, not a decision-making one — its role is advisory, central to India's "cooperative federalism" architecture
- The Council normally meets rarely; the Zonal Councils (under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956) function as its regional standing committees
The current amendment concerns who is invited to Council meetings when a Union Territory's elected government is not functioning — extending representation to LGs of Puducherry, Delhi, and J&K in place of an absent elected Chief Minister.
President's Rule — Different Legal Basis for States vs Union Territories
"President's rule" is a colloquial term covering several distinct constitutional/statutory mechanisms for central takeover when the ordinary constitutional machinery of a territory fails. The specific provision invoked depends on whether the unit is a full state, a UT with a legislature, or Delhi, which has a unique constitutional status.
Key Details
- States: Article 356 — President's Rule on failure of constitutional machinery, based on a Governor's report or otherwise; subject to Parliamentary approval and outer limits, and to judicial review per S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
- Puducherry: Section 51 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 — the President may suspend the Act's operation on the Administrator's report; this is a statutory (not constitutional) provision, since Puducherry's legislature exists by ordinary law, not the Constitution
- Jammu and Kashmir: Section 73 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 — parallel provision for the J&K Union Territory, since Article 356 does not apply to UTs; the President may suspend the Act on the Lieutenant Governor's report
- Delhi (NCT): Article 239AB, inserted by the Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991 — allows the President to suspend Article 239AA (Delhi's special status provision) or any law made under it, on a report from the Lieutenant Governor, when the administration cannot be carried on per Article 239AA
Because each of these territories is governed by a different legal instrument (constitutional Article vs statutory Section), the Inter-State Council's 1990 Order needed a distinct clause for each rather than one uniform "President's Rule" clause — which is exactly what the September 2026 amendment supplies.
Jammu and Kashmir's Transition to Union Territory Status (2019)
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 abrogated the special status previously linked to Article 370 and split the former state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir (with a legislature) and Ladakh (without one). The former state Governor's post was redesignated as Lieutenant Governor.
Key Details
- Enacted August 2019, reorganisation effective October 31, 2019
- Section 73 specifically empowers the President to suspend the Act's provisions where UT administration cannot be carried on as prescribed — functionally equivalent to Article 356 for a state
- Since J&K UT has its own elected Assembly (unlike Ladakh), the possibility of an administrative breakdown requiring central intervention under Section 73 is a live and testable scenario
J&K's shift from statehood (Article 356) to UT status (Section 73) is precisely why its inclusion required a fresh clause in the Inter-State Council Order rather than simply being covered under the pre-existing "states under Article 356" language.
- Amendment notified by Ministry of Home Affairs: September 9, 2026; published September 14, 2026
- Territories covered by the new proviso: Puducherry, Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi
- Original Inter-State Council Order: 1990, following the Sarkaria Commission (1983-88) recommendation
- Legal basis by territory: States — Article 356; Puducherry — Section 51, GUT Act 1963; J&K — Section 73, J&K Reorganisation Act 2019; Delhi — Article 239AB (inserted by the 69th Amendment, 1991)
- Council composition includes six Cabinet-rank Union Ministers nominated by the Prime Minister