Template talk:States and union territories of India

I'm not sure it's wise to put newlines in here. It looks pretty rubbish on 800x600 (try it). I'd vote for replacing the newlines with |s and letting the user's browser do the wrapping. Admittedly you'd get some |s at the end of lines, but that's unavoidable. (Unless, of course, you get rid of the |s altogether and perhaps replace them with commas.) -- Timwi 00:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the newlines on both the Indian and Brazilian ones. What do you think now? - Chrism 17:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. However, for some reason, the table now insists on acquiring a minimum width of 700 pixels. I couldn't find a cause for this. What might be causing that? -- Timwi 19:20, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Update: Sorry, it doesn't seem to be this table that does it. It's happening all over the site now. Has someone changed something in the site scheme? -- Timwi 19:22, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Update^2: I'm sorry. It seems that what I encountered is actually a bug in my browser (Mozilla Firefox). No cause for worry on your part. -- Timwi 19:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

IMHO Delhi should be separate from Union territories and be labelled National Capital Territory. See India. -- Paddu 05:29, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Category:States and territories of India

Unless you want to add the category to every article, could we leave it in the template ? -- User:Docu

That sounds like a good idea to me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 00:20, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with Paddu above that the NCT should be separate.

Delhi should be included in the list of Union Territories. There is no such thing called a National Capital Territory. There are only states and union territories. It is incorrect to say that Delhi is no longer a Union Territory. Delhi still has an entry in the First Schedule, Part II of the Constitution of India (Union Territories).

"1. Delhi...The territory which immediately before the commencement of this Constitution was comprised in the Chief Commissioner’s Province of Delhi."

What the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 did was to change the name of the territory (besides introducing an elected assembly, etc.), it did not change the classification of the territory. Under the Constitution (Article I, Section 3):

"(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."

Delhi is neither (a) or (c).

Also, Article 239AA of the Constitution says:

"239AA. Special provisions with respect to Delhi.—(1) As from the date of commencement of the Constitution (Sixty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1991, the Union territory of Delhi shall be called the National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereafter in this Part referred to as the National Capital Territory) and the administrator thereof appointed under article 239 shall be designated as the Lieutenant Governor." (emphasis added)

This substantiates my claim that only the name was changed, not the classification.

So the correct way to refer to Delhi would be:

Union Territories:

... National Capital Territory of Delhi

or

Delhi (National Capital Territory)

--Manojb 10:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)