Power Struggle in Puducherry Rekindles Statehood Demand Amid CM–LG Row

Old Frictions, New Flames in Puducherry's Governance

Puducherry, the Union Territory nestled in the southeastern coast of India, has once again found itself at the crossroads of administrative discord. A fresh power struggle between the Chief Minister and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) has disrupted the fragile balance of governance. This time, the conflict stems from a dispute over key administrative appointments, further fueling the long-standing demand for full statehood.

Though a temporary truce has been brokered, the situation remains tense, with political observers warning that the conflict could flare up again unless structural reforms are initiated. As the tussle exposes constitutional grey zones, Puducherry’s case has reignited a national conversation around the limits of power in Union Territories.

The Latest Flashpoint: Appointments Without Consensus

The immediate cause of the recent standoff was the appointment of senior bureaucrats to important portfolios in Puducherry’s administration. According to sources within the state secretariat, Chief Minister N. Rangasamy opposed several appointments made by Lieutenant Governor Dr. Tamilisai Soundararajan without prior consultation with the elected government.

The CM's office contended that the unilateral decisions were in violation of norms of cooperative federalism and the spirit of democracy, emphasizing that the Union Territory, though not a full-fledged state, had an elected legislature whose mandate must be respected.

In response, the LG’s office maintained that her actions were within constitutional bounds, citing provisions under the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, which grants significant authority to the Lieutenant Governor.

While such appointments are not new sources of friction, what made this episode particularly sensitive was the public tone of the disagreement and the political pressure from both local opposition parties and central government allies.

A History of Strained Relations Between CM and LG

Puducherry has long served as a battleground between the ideals of democratic governance and the practicalities of central oversight. Over the years, the territory has witnessed repeated clashes between elected Chief Ministers and appointed Lieutenant Governors—a trend most visibly seen during the tenure of former LG Kiran Bedi.

This time, the dispute highlights a familiar tension: the CM expects autonomy, while the LG often asserts authority as a representative of the Union Government. According to senior political analysts, this dynamic creates ambiguity in governance, with policies either stalling or being delayed due to jurisdictional disputes.

This dual power structure—where elected leaders share authority with centrally appointed administrators—often leads to governance paralysis, hurting development, service delivery, and local morale.

Temporary Truce: Mediation by Centre

As public attention mounted and administrative functions slowed, the Union Home Ministry intervened to calm the waters. After a series of backchannel negotiations, a temporary truce was reached between CM Rangasamy and LG Soundararajan.

The agreement reportedly includes the following terms:

• Future appointments to key administrative positions will be made only after mutual consultation.

• Disputes over administrative decisions will be routed through the Chief Secretary’s office for neutral mediation.

• The Ministry of Home Affairs will issue updated guidelines to streamline the consultation process between the LG and the elected government.

While this truce has allowed governance to resume, critics argue that it is merely a stopgap, and not a sustainable solution.

Reigniting the Statehood Demand

At the heart of this political drama lies a deeper, more structural issue—Puducherry’s lack of full statehood. The recent spat has provided fresh fuel to those demanding that Puducherry be granted the same constitutional status as other Indian states, thereby giving the elected government unambiguous authority.

Local leaders from various parties, including the DMK, Congress, and AIADMK, have echoed this sentiment. DMK MLA R. Siva stated:

“This is not about individuals or politics. It’s about the rights of the people of Puducherry to have a government that is answerable to them, not to unelected appointees.”

Supporters of statehood argue that the Union Territory model is unsuited to regions with functioning legislative assemblies and vibrant political life. They point to examples like Delhi, which faces similar issues despite having state-like structures.

However, opponents of statehood—mostly from central government quarters—argue that Puducherry’s small geographical size, limited resources, and strategic location make it more efficient to remain under central oversight.

Governance Challenges Amplified by Power Struggles

The constant friction between the CM and LG doesn't just stay within the walls of the Raj Nivas. It directly impacts:

• Policy implementation: Schemes often face delays due to conflicting directions from the CM and LG’s offices.

• Bureaucratic morale: Officials frequently find themselves caught in political crossfire.

• Investor confidence: Administrative uncertainty can deter both local and international investors.

• Public welfare: From healthcare to housing, crucial initiatives get stuck in procedural bottlenecks.

The recent spat over appointments is believed to have delayed at least five major infrastructure projects, including the expansion of the Puducherry–Cuddalore industrial corridor.

Legal Ambiguities: The Need for Clarity

The Puducherry conflict highlights constitutional grey areas around the powers of the LG in Union Territories with elected governments. While the Supreme Court of India has ruled that LGs are bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in certain cases (as in the NCT of Delhi ruling), these judgments do not always translate into clear guidelines for Puducherry.

Legal experts are calling for a new framework that specifically addresses the powers of LGs in Union Territories with legislatures, thereby avoiding repeated constitutional crises.

Constitutional law expert Prof. Meera Krishna notes:

“This tug-of-war is bound to recur unless we define the boundaries more clearly. Puducherry should not operate in a legal vacuum.”

Voices from the Ground: What Do Citizens Think?

For the citizens of Puducherry, the ongoing power struggle is more than just political theatre. It affects daily life. Interviews conducted across the city reveal a mood of frustration and fatigue.

Local entrepreneur Ramesh Pillai, who operates a tourism-based business, said:

“We are fed up with political fights. We want infrastructure, jobs, and safety. Whether it is the CM or the LG, they must work together.”

There’s also a growing youth movement—largely led by student groups—demanding statehood and accountability. These groups argue that central oversight dilutes local agency, making the political system less responsive to regional needs.

Conclusion: Time for Constitutional Reform or Continued Tension?

The CM–LG faceoff in Puducherry is a microcosm of a broader challenge facing India’s federal structure: How should power be shared between the Centre and the states—or quasi-states like Union Territories?

While the temporary resolution has restored surface-level normalcy, underlying tensions remain. Without concrete legal reforms and a renewed federal vision, Puducherry is likely to see more such clashes, harming both governance and public trust.

Whether Puducherry will gain statehood in the near future remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that its people demand a system that prioritizes development over discord and delivers on the promise of representative democracy.