After a political furore, the Central government has backed away from introducing a Bill to include the Union Territory (UT) of Chandigarh under the ambit of Article 240 of the Constitution. Article 240 empowers the President to make regulations for the peace, progress, and good governance of certain UTs that do not have their own legislatures. The government’s attempt to introduce the Bill raised the fundamental question about the Centre’s attempts at overreach in the country’s federal structure.
In November, the Centre proposed to include Chandigarh under the ambit of Article 240. As per a bulletin of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, the government intended to bring the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025, in the upcoming Winter Session of Parliament, beginning December 1, 2025. It wanted “to align Chandigarh with other Union Territories without legislatures — such as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, and Puducherry — when its Legislative Assembly is dissolved or suspended.”
The backlash was swift and intense from Punjab. The government then clarified that it would not introduce the Bill this session. The fact that stakeholders learned about this move through parliamentary bulletins rather than any structured dialogue raised the suspicion that the government was adopting a unilateral approach to concentrate authority in New Delhi.
The claim over Chandigarh — the joint capital of Punjab and Haryana — has been a sensitive and emotive issue since the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The Punjab governor serves as the Administrator of Chandigarh. Punjab has been asking for the handing over of Chandigarh, pointing out that the Agreement of 1970 stated that the capital project area of Chandigarh “would, as a whole, go to Punjab,” which was a clear commitment from the Central government. In 1985, the Rajiv-Longowal Accord reaffirmed that Chandigarh would be transferred to Punjab.
These unfulfilled commitments continue to fuel resentment and distrust between Punjab and the Central government. Earlier, the Centre’s decision to restructure Panjab University’s Senate and Syndicate — the university’s governing bodies — was also met with stiff opposition and rescinded. Critics and political parties were quick to point out that introducing the change in Chandigarh through parliamentary bulletins revealed how little the Centre government respects the spirit of consultation, consensus, and shared governance — the nucleus of federal spirit.
The Ministry of Home Affairs later clarified its position, stating that the proposal did not seek to alter Chandigarh’s governance or administrative structure. The Ministry noted that “a suitable decision will be taken only after adequate consultations with all stakeholders, keeping in mind the interests of Chandigarh.”
Punjab shares an international border with a hostile Pakistan, and it has been through a traumatic phase of militancy between the mid-1980s and early 1990s. Its geopolitical reality cannot be ignored and this is why Punjab needs to be dealt with sensitivity. Yet, it appears that the Central government’s recent decisions on Chandigarh and Panjab University have been made at administrative or bureaucratic levels, bypassing political consultation and disregarding federal principles. This is a dangerous approach, especially for a border State with such a violent history. Rather than resolving the decades-old issue of Chandigarh’s transfer, the Centre’s actions signal an intent to consolidate control instead.
Against the backdrop of decisions surrounding Chandigarh being taken from New Delhi, several people in political circles, as well as others, feel that attempts are being made to negate regional politics, regional interests, and regional power. This negation and this top-down approach has resulted in reactions from several quarters in Punjab.
The Chandigarh question demands a political solution, not an administrative procedure. The decisions affecting Punjab’s identity and territorial claims must involve genuine political dialogue and consensus-building, not bureaucratic notifications. For a border State with such a complex history, such moves, and the perceptions caused by them, carry serious consequences that extend beyond mere administrative efficiency.