The Chandigarh question – The Hindu

A.Following a political outrage, the Central government has backed away from introducing a bill that would bring the Union Territory (UT) of Chandigarh under Article 240 of the Constitution. Article 240 empowers the President to make regulations 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 overreach in the federal structure of the country.

In November, the Center proposed to include Chandigarh under Article 240. The government was planning to introduce the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025, in the upcoming Winter Session of Parliament from December 1, 2025, according to the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha bulletin. The Center wanted to “bring Chandigarh in line with other non-legislative Union Territories like 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 from Punjab was swift and intense. The government later announced that it would not submit the bill this session. Stakeholders learned of this move through parliamentary bulletins rather than any structured dialogue, raising suspicions that the government was taking 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 emotional issue since the Punjab Reorganization Act of 1966. The governor of Punjab serves as the administrator of Chandigarh. Punjab has been demanding the handover of Chandigarh, pointing out that the 1970 Agreement stated that the capital project area of ​​Chandigarh “shall go to Punjab as a whole”, a clear commitment of the Central government. In 1985, the Rajiv-Longowal Agreement reaffirmed that Chandigarh would be transferred to Punjab.

These unfulfilled commitments continue to fuel resentment and mistrust between Punjab and the Central government. Earlier, the Centre’s decision to restructure the Panjab University Senate and Syndicate (the governing bodies of the university) was also met with strong opposition and was cancelled. Critics and political parties were quick to point out that the introduction of the amendment in Chandigarh through parliamentary bulletins revealed how little respect the Center government had for the spirit of consultation, consensus and joint management that is the core of the federal spirit.

The Ministry of Home Affairs later clarified its stance, stating that the proposal was not intended to change the governance or administrative structure of Chandigarh. The ministry noted that “an appropriate decision will be taken only after adequate consultations with all stakeholders, keeping in mind the interests of Chandigarh.”

Punjab shares an international border with hostile Pakistan and went through a traumatic phase of militancy between the mid-1980s and early 1990s. The geopolitical reality cannot be ignored and hence Punjab needs to be handled with sensitivity. However, it seems that the recent decisions of the Central government regarding Chandigarh and Panjab University were taken at the administrative or bureaucratic level, skipping political consultations and ignoring federal principles. This is a dangerous approach, especially for a border state with a violent history. The Centre’s actions signal its intention to consolidate control rather than resolve the decades-old issue regarding Chandigarh’s transfer.

In the background of the decisions taken by New Delhi regarding Chandigarh, many in the political circles and others feel that there are attempts to ignore regional politics, regional interests and regional power. This negation and this top-down approach resulted in backlash from many quarters in Punjab.

The Chandigarh issue requires a political solution, not an administrative procedure. Decisions affecting Punjab’s identity and territorial claims should involve genuine political dialogue and consensus building, not bureaucratic pronouncements. For a border state with such a complex history, such moves and the perceptions they create carry serious consequences that go beyond mere administrative effectiveness.