A major political storm has erupted in Punjab following indications from the Centre that it may bring Chandigarh under Article 240 so as to make direct framing of regulations for the Union Territory by the President possible. The Union Home Ministry has clarified that no final decision has been taken on the proposal, and it will not be introduced in the Winter Session without consultation. But the political backlash has only grown louder.
The Punjab leadership sees the move as an attempt at diluting its historical and administrative affiliation with Chandigarh, a city that has always remained central to the political identity of the state.
What Triggered the Controversy?
The debate began when a Parliament bulletin listed the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025 for introduction in the Winter Session starting December 1. As drafted, Chandigarh could be brought under Article 240, a provision that empowers the President to issue binding regulations for Union Territories without legislatures, similar to Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra & Nagar Haveli & Daman & Diu, and Puducherry (when its Assembly is suspended).
If approved, it would permit the Centre to appoint an independent administrator for Chandigarh, doing away with the convention of the Punjab Governor serving as the UT’s Administrator.
This triggered alarm across Punjab’s political spectrum, as parties cautioned that it would change the relationship between Punjab and Chandigarh.
Chandigarh’s governance
Chandigarh has had a unique administrative journey:
Since 1966, it has been the joint capital of Punjab and Haryana.
Till 1984, the UT had its own Chief Secretary.
After 1984, the Punjab Governor became the Administrator for Chandigarh, while a UT Adviser replaced the Chief Secretary.
In 2016, the Centre attempted to appoint an independent administrator. But after protests, it withdrew the proposal.
Against this backdrop, the deliberations on Article 240 are viewed with scepticism by Punjab, which feels this move can finally take away all administrative control over Chandigarh to the Centre.
What the Centre Is Saying
The Union Home Ministry issued a detailed clarification in order to manage the backlash:
The proposition merely aims to ease the law-making process for UT.
No final decision has been made.
The government will not introduce the Bill in the Winter Session.
Nothing will change in Chandigarh’s relation with Punjab and Haryana.
Despite this, the political parties in Punjab believe that the very proposal raises legitimate concerns on the future of Chandigarh.
Outrage from Punjab
Broad-based and strong opposition in Punjab:
- Fear of loss of democratic control
Putting Chandigarh under Article 240 would, in one stroke, transfer the power to make laws for the UT from Parliament to the President, read the Home Ministry. MPs from Punjab could neither discuss nor vote against ordinances pertaining to the city.
- Historical and emotional value
Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann said Chandigarh is built on Punjab’s land and remains intrinsic to the state’s identity. He accused the Centre of “conspiring to snatch” Punjab’s capital.
- Federal Concerns
Congress leader Amarinder Singh Raja Warring warned of “serious repercussions,” termed the move an assault on federalism.
The Akali Dal chief, Sukhbir Singh Badal, described the Bill as an “anti-Punjab” move and vowed to oppose it at “every front.”
AAP MP Vikramjit Sahney has written to all Punjab MPs, urging a meeting with Home Minister Amit Shah, citing Chandigarh’s historical relevance.
AAP convener Arvind Kejriwal argued that undermining Punjab’s identity and rights sets a dangerous national precedence.
ALSO READ: Government Unveils Ambitious Winter Session Agenda With 10 Major Reform Bills
Why Chandigarh Matters So Much
For Punjab, Chandigarh is not a mere administrative unit; it is an unfinished political commitment. Successive governments have reiterated that Chandigarh rightfully belongs to Punjab-a position anchored to the promises made during the re-organisation in 1966.
The move would also bring Chandigarh at par with other UTs that do not have legislatures and provide more administrative flexibility to the Centre. The Larger Context The Punjab Governor has been administering Chandigarh since June 1, 1984.
A similar move to have an independent administrator in 2016 was rolled back after protests. Punjab has been asking for the UT’s transfer back to the state under various political accords. The latest proposal by the Centre has reopened old wounds — and raised new questions about federalism, governance and constitutional balance.
FOR MORE: https://civiclens.in/category/national-news-civiclens-in/
About the Author
1 thought on “Chandigarh under Article 240? Why has the proposal triggered fierce protests in Punjab”