The Chandigarh question

AFollowing political uproar, the central government has backed away from introducing a bill to bring the Union Territory (UT) of Chandigarh under the ambit of Article 240 of the Constitution. Article 240 empowers the President to make rules for the peace, progress and good government of certain UTs which do not have their own legislature. The government’s attempt to introduce the bill has raised the fundamental question about the Centre’s attempts to over-extend the federal structure of the country.

In November, the Center proposed to include Chandigarh under the ambit of Article 240. According to a bulletin issued by the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, the government planned to table the Constitution (131st Amendment) Act, 2025 in the upcoming winter session of Parliament, which begins on December 1, 2025. She wanted to “bring Chandigarh on par with other Union Territories without legislatures – such as Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, and Puducherry – when the Legislative Assembly is dissolved or suspended.”

The response was swift and intense from Punjab. The government subsequently made it clear that it would not introduce the bill this session. The fact that stakeholders learned about this move through parliamentary bulletins and not structured dialogue raised suspicions that the government was taking a unilateral approach to concentrate authority in New Delhi.

The claim to Chandigarh – the joint capital of Punjab and Haryana – has been a sensitive and emotive issue since the Punjab Reorganization Act of 1966. The Governor of Punjab serves as the administrator of Chandigarh. Punjab has asked for the transfer of Chandigarh, pointing out that the 1970 agreement stated that the main project area of ​​Chandigarh would “go as a whole to Punjab”, which was a clear commitment from the central government. In 1985, the Rajiv-Longowal Agreement reaffirmed that Chandigarh would be transferred to Punjab.

These unfulfilled obligations continue to fuel resentment and mistrust between Punjab and the central government. Earlier, the Centre’s decision to restructure the Senate and Syndicate of Panjab University – the governing bodies of the university – also faced stiff opposition and was withdrawn. Critics and political parties were quick to point out that introducing the change in Chandigarh through parliamentary bulletins revealed how little the Center government respects the spirit of consultation, consensus and shared governance – the core of the federal spirit.

The Home Ministry later clarified its position and stated that the proposal did not seek to change the governance or administrative structure of Chandigarh. The ministry noted that “an appropriate decision will be taken only after adequate consultation with all stakeholders, taking into account the interests of Chandigarh.”

Sharing an international border with hostile Pakistan, Punjab went through a traumatic phase of militancy between the mid-1980s and early 1990s. The geopolitical realities cannot be ignored and hence Punjab must be treated with sensitivity. Yet, it appears that the recent central government decisions on Chandigarh and Panjab University have been taken at an administrative or bureaucratic level, ignoring political consultation and federal principles. This is a dangerous approach, especially for a border state with such a violent history. Rather than solving the decades-old issue of Chandigarh handover, the Centre’s actions signal an intention to consolidate control instead.

In the backdrop of the decisions around Chandigarh being taken from New Delhi, several people in political circles, as well as others, feel that attempts are being made to deny regional politics, regional interests and regional power. This denial and top-down approach has resulted in reactions from various corners of Punjab.

The Chandigarh issue requires 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 announcements. For a border state with such a complex history, such moves, and the perceptions they engender, have serious consequences that extend beyond mere administrative efficiency.