The recent discussions around the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill 2025 have stirred significant political controversy, particularly in Punjab. The Union Home Ministry has clarified that there is no current plan to introduce this amendment in the Winter Session of Parliament. This proposal, aiming to bring Chandigarh under Article 240, has revived historical tensions tied to the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966.
Chandigarh holds a unique position as a Union Territory, serving as the shared capital of both Punjab and Haryana. Currently, the Governor of Punjab manages additional responsibilities as the Administrator of Chandigarh. The proposed amendment intends to list Chandigarh under Article 240, which would empower the President to make regulations for the Union Territory, similar to other UTs like the Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep.
The Lok Sabha bulletin dated November 21 mentioned the introduction of this amendment bill. Its primary objective is to simplify the Central government's legislative process for Chandigarh, potentially leading to the appointment of an independent Administrator or Lieutenant Governor. However, the government has not finalized any decision, and the bill will not be introduced in the upcoming session. They emphasize that changes will only occur after consultations with Punjab, Haryana, and the Chandigarh administration.
The situation has deep roots in the post-partition era. After Lahore became part of Pakistan in 1947, Chandigarh was developed as a modern capital for Punjab, designed by the architect Le Corbusier and inaugurated in 1953. The Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966 further complicated matters by creating Haryana and designating Chandigarh as a joint capital, with a property division ratio of 60:40 in favor of Punjab.
Despite the Centre's 1970 promise to transfer Chandigarh to Punjab, the city remains under central control, with Haryana sharing its government facilities. The lack of a separate capital for Haryana has perpetuated shared usage of Chandigarh, fueling ongoing disputes. Punjab's leaders, including CM Bhagwant Mann, have voiced strong opposition, viewing the city as an integral part of Punjab's identity.
At the core of this debate are sensitive constitutional and administrative issues. The proposed change would alter the existing power dynamics, shifting the role of Chandigarh's Administrator from the Punjab Governor to a Lieutenant Governor appointed by the Centre. This could impact land, policing, and administrative control, affecting the political balance between Punjab and Haryana.
Chandigarh symbolizes Punjabi identity and the unfulfilled promises from the 1970 declaration. Any hasty modification to its governance could lead to administrative challenges and legal complexities, necessitating careful constitutional interpretation.
To address these challenges, structured consultations among the Centre, the states of Punjab and Haryana, and the Chandigarh administration are crucial. Revisiting historical commitments and fostering a political-administrative consensus are essential steps. A transparent legislative process and balanced administrative framework can ensure effective governance while respecting inter-state relationships.
In conclusion, the discussions surrounding Chandigarh's status under Article 240 underline the intricate historical, political, and constitutional layers involved. A considered approach that honors past commitments and prioritizes collaborative negotiation will be key to resolving this complex issue effectively.
Kutos : AI Assistant!
