Chandigarh under Article 240: What is behind Centre's move? | Capital Beat

The latest episode of Capital Beat brought together senior journalist Jagdeep S Sindhu, Prof. Jagrup Singh Sekhon, and RS Khatra, IG (Retd), to discuss the controversy surrounding the Union government’s proposal to introduce the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025. The Bill, listed in the winter session bulletin of Parliament, sought to bring Chandigarh under Article 240, a move that triggered strong reactions across Punjab.

The proposal, as listed in the Rajya Sabha bulletin, would place Chandigarh in the same category as Union Territories without legislatures such as Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, and Puducherry. The development led to immediate political upheaval, with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the Congress, and the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) alleging that the plan amounted to an attempt to “snatch Chandigarh away from Punjab”.

Also read: Centre’s Chandigarh move sparks outrage in Punjab, Home Ministry clarifies

Although the government later put the decision “on hold”, it did not announce its withdrawal, raising questions about intent, timing, and possible future implications.

Political tremors in Punjab

According to the panel discussion, the amendment would have empowered the President to frame regulations for Chandigarh and could have paved the way for the appointment of a Lieutenant Governor. This would mark a shift from the current arrangement in which the Punjab Governor serves as Chandigarh’s administrator.

Prof. Sekhon said, “We all are surprised… no one knew before it became public that they were bringing Chandigarh under Article 240.” He described the development as part of a wider pattern, stating that “for the last seven years there’s a continuous centralisation of power.”

He added that Punjab remains a state where the ruling party at the Centre has not found a firm political footing despite “large number of defections” from different parties. He said there were repeated attempts to “test the waters in Punjab”, particularly around emotive issues such as Chandigarh, water sharing, and governance matters linked to institutions like the Panjab University.

Concerns over emotional and historical sensitivities

Prof. Sekhon said the proposal struck an emotional chord, “They know that Chandigarh is an emotional issue.” He added that the history of unresolved matters dating back to the 1966 reorganisation remained alive in public memory.

On the possible fallout if Article 240 were applied, he said, “It’s an emotional issue… Punjab is not at a crossroads; Punjab has gone very back.” He linked the anxieties to long-standing economic and administrative challenges, including stalled recruitments and governance concerns.

He added that taking Chandigarh under direct central control “will have very catastrophic consequences”, and referred to a perception among sections in Punjab that “Delhi Darbar always tries to snub Punjab”.

Historical backdrop explained

Joining the discussion, retired IG Khatra traced Chandigarh’s administrative background. He said Punjab lost its historic capital Lahore during the partition, leading to complex arrangements after the reorganisation of states.

He explained, “Chandigarh was established on 28 villages… was the joint Punjab.” After the 1966 reorganisation, when Haryana and Himachal Pradesh were carved out, Punjab was “outrightly not given its capital”.

He added that the Rajiv-Longowal Accord, ratified by Parliament in 1985, had provided for Chandigarh to be given to Punjab, saying, “It was very much in that ratification… only thing is it was not handed over.”

Administrative arrangements and present concerns

Khatra explained that during peak militancy, the post of Chief Commissioner in Chandigarh was abolished and the Punjab Governor was made administrator “for the ease of policing”. The deputy commissioner came from Haryana, while the SSP post was with Punjab. Later cadre reviews changed these structures.

He said current tensions over issues like Panjab University added to public unease. “People of Punjab… they will not accept,” he said, referring to proposals under Article 240. According to him, such moves risk putting “hard-earned peace” under stress.

He also highlighted the recent devastation caused by floods, noting that the border belt suffered significant losses. “All these things require a secure environment from the government,” he said, stressing the need for a sensitive administrative approach.

Questions over political strategy

When the discussion returned to the political implications, Prof. Sekhon remarked that only the government could clarify its intentions. He said Punjab had faced major upheavals in the past and questioned why issues that had historically caused unrest were repeatedly revisited. “What price Punjab had paid to restore that peace?” he said.

He described Punjab as carrying the legacy of partition, stating, “It lost everything… lost its glory.” He pointed to the continued challenges in border areas, ranging from lack of industry to stagnant growth.

He reiterated that emotional and cultural ethos in Punjab remained strong: “We have an ethos… Guru’s ethos, freedom struggle ethos.” He said the state’s diverse population shared these values, making such administrative decisions particularly sensitive.

Political calculations and competing claims

When Sindhu rejoined the conversation, he said he was “surprised by the political width” of the Union government. He suggested that the move may have had indirect political implications, stating, “It looks like as if indirectly they don’t want Congress to come and take power in Punjab.”

He said Punjab remained the only major northern state where the ruling national party lacked political presence, adding that the leadership might be “testing the people of Punjab and their political alignment” with respect to proposed changes.

According to him, such steps were interpreted as signals that “certain changes… may curtail your legitimate rights,” and he questioned whether core demands of the state had been addressed in recent decades.

Public perception and recurring grievances

Sindhu said, “They have a plan for Punjab because they want to take Punjab into their hold.” He described long-standing demands across sectors — including flood relief, agricultural losses, and border security — and questioned whether existing administrations had provided substantive solutions.

He pointed out that “the people… have already sacrificed so much,” and that public sentiment in Punjab could not be “played like this”. He stressed that any government needed to provide “concrete solutions” to gain trust in a border state with heightened sensitivities.

The discussion also referenced past statements by BJP leader Sunil Jakhar, with Khatra noting that Jakhar had recommended a change in “Nazaria” or perspective towards Punjab as a way to build acceptance.

Uncertainty over next steps

As the debate drew to a close, the panel noted that the Union government had not withdrawn the proposal but only placed it under consideration. The question of whether the idea would re-emerge in a future session remained open.

The panel concluded with an acknowledgement that the issue had raised significant concern in Punjab, creating questions over administrative control, federal balance, and the emotional weight that Chandigarh carries in the state’s political landscape.

(The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.)