Why in News?

• The Union Home Ministry has clarified that the Central Government has no intention of introducing the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill 2025 in the Winter Session of Parliament to bring Chandigarh under Article 240.
• The proposal triggered sharp political backlash in Punjab, reviving long-standing tensions related to Chandigarh’s status, rooted in the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.
• Chandigarh is a Union Territory (UT), but is also the shared capital of Punjab and Haryana. The Governor of Punjab currently holds additional charge as the Administrator of the UT of Chandigarh.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Proposed Change
• Centre’s Clarification
• Punjab Opposing the Move
• Key Constitutional and Administrative Issues
• Way Forward
• Conclusion

Proposed Change:

• Parliament bulletin:
  • Lok Sabha bulletin (Nov 21) listed the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill 2025 for introduction.
  • Objective: Include Chandigarh under Article 240, allowing the President to make regulations for the UT.
  • Effect: Enable appointment of an independent Administrator/Lieutenant Governor.
• Article 240:
  • Empowers the President to frame regulations for certain UTs - Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu, Puducherry (when Assembly is dissolved/suspended).
  • Presidential regulations can override Acts of Parliament applicable to that UT.
• If applied to Chandigarh:
  • Chandigarh would come under direct administrative control of the Centre, similar to other UTs without legislatures.
  • Punjab Governor would no longer serve as Administrator. 

Centre’s Clarification:

• Government’s statement:
  • Proposal only aimed at simplifying the Central government’s law-making process for Chandigarh.
  • However, no decision has been finalized yet. No change intended in the current governance structure. No Bill will be introduced in the 2025 Winter Session.
• Stakeholder consultation: Decision will be taken only after adequate consultations with Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh administration, other stakeholders.

Punjab Opposing the Move:

• Historical significance:
  • Post-partition: Lahore went to Pakistan in 1947. Chandigarh was envisioned as the modern capital of Punjab.
  • Planned city: Designed by Le Corbusier. Inaugurated by President Rajendra Prasad in 1953.
  • Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966: Creation of Haryana. Chandigarh made joint capital with property division in 60:40 ratio (Punjab:Haryana). Chandigarh became a UT under Centre’s control.
  • 1970: Centre declared that Chandigarh would go to Punjab. Announcement influenced by Punjabi Suba movement leader Fateh Singh.
  • Haryana’s temporary arrangement: Allowed to share secretariat and legislature buildings for five years. Given financial assistance to build new capital (₹10 crore grant + ₹10 crore loan). No separate capital built till date.
• Punjab’s current position: Views Chandigarh as its undisputed rightful capital. Asserts that the city was built by “uprooting Punjabi villages”. CM Bhagwant Mann (AAP) opposed the Bill, calling it a conspiracy to weaken Punjab’s claim.
• Political reactions: Opposition parties criticised the Centre’s move as “FAST approach — First Announce, Second Think.”

Key Constitutional and Administrative Issues:

• Sensitive federal question: Chandigarh’s status is historically linked to state reorganisation and linguistic federalism. High political stakes for both Punjab and Haryana.
• Administrative implications: Changing role of Administrator from Punjab Governor to LG shifts decision-making, Centre–State power dynamics, control over land, policing and administration.
• Inter-State power balance: Haryana continues to operate from Chandigarh without setting up its own capital.
• Political symbolism: Chandigarh represents Punjabi identity, legacy of reorganisation, incomplete implementation of 1970 promise.
• Historical commitments: Transfer promises made in 1970 remain unfulfilled, complicating any new move.
• Governance stability: Risk of administrative friction if the governance model is altered abruptly.
• Legal and constitutional complexity: Bringing Chandigarh under Article 240 may require nuanced constitutional interpretation.

Way Forward:

• Stakeholder consultation: Mandatory structured dialogue among Centre, Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh UT administration.
• Federal consensus: A political–administrative consensus model on Chandigarh’s status is essential.
• Revisit past commitments: Review the 1970 declaration and explore realistic, time-bound solutions.
• Balanced administrative framework: Any law-making reform must protect local governance, federal balance, and the interests of both states.
• Transparent communication: Avoid ambiguity in legislative bulletins to prevent political escalation.

Conclusion:

• The controversy over including Chandigarh under Article 240 highlights the deep-rooted historical, political and constitutional sensitivities surrounding the city.
• The episode reflects the need for careful federal negotiation and respect for long-standing commitments made to Punjab and Haryana.
• A balanced, consultative approach remains essential to ensure administrative efficiency without disturbing the delicate inter-state equilibrium.