On a chilly November weekend in 2025, a political storm brewed over Chandigarh, the shared capital of Punjab and Haryana, as the central government’s plans for a constitutional amendment ignited fierce debate across party lines. The controversy centered around the proposed Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025, which, if enacted, would bring Chandigarh under Article 240 of the Indian Constitution—a move that many in Punjab saw as a direct challenge to the state’s historical claim over the city.
According to The Indian Express, the Punjab unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took an unusual stand, breaking ranks with its national leadership to oppose the Bill. Just days before the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued a clarification, Punjab BJP president Sunil Jakhar personally reached out to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, expressing deep concerns over the proposal’s implications. In a virtual meeting on November 23, 2025, the Punjab BJP’s core committee unanimously voiced its opposition, insisting that “Chandigarh is an emotional issue for Punjabis. These emotions cannot be ignored. Our resolve to uphold Punjab’s structural framework is unshakable.”
Within hours, the MHA moved to quell the uproar. In a statement released Sunday, the ministry said, “A suitable decision will be taken only after adequate consultations with all stakeholders, keeping in mind the interests of Chandigarh. There is no need for any concern on this matter…. The central government has no intention of introducing any bill to this effect in the upcoming winter session of Parliament.” This assurance, reported by ThePrint and Times of India, was meant to allay fears that the Centre was preparing to “wrench away Chandigarh” from Punjab through a legislative sleight of hand.
But what exactly did the proposed amendment entail? As outlined in the Lok Sabha’s tentative list of new Bills, the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill sought to add Chandigarh to Article 240, aligning it with other Union Territories (UTs) without legislatures—such as Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, and Puducherry (when its assembly is dissolved or suspended). Article 240 empowers the President to issue regulations for the peace, progress, and good governance of these UTs, which carry the same force as Acts of Parliament. That might sound dry, but the implications are anything but.
Experts quickly weighed in, warning that such a change would mark a “fundamental and major legal transformation in the structure of governance.” Senior advocate Anupam Gupta, speaking to ThePrint, explained, “The centre of gravity of law-making for Chandigarh would shift dramatically from the Parliament to the MHA. Both literally and effectively, MHA would rule Chandigarh to the exclusion of any other authority.” In other words, the Ministry of Home Affairs—not Parliament—would become the primary source of law for Chandigarh, sidelining the traditional avenues of debate and oversight that have long given Punjab’s representatives a say in the city’s governance.
Gupta went further, noting that the President’s regulations under Article 240 could amend or repeal existing parliamentary laws, including the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966 and the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act of 1952—cornerstones of Chandigarh’s legal framework. “If Chandigarh is added to the UTs in Article 240, any regulations made by the President (read: the Centre) for Chandigarh can repeal or amend any parliamentary law, applicable to Chandigarh. This includes the Punjab Reorganisation Act. It can also repeal or amend any other law applicable to Chandigarh—the 1952 Capital of Punjab Act, as well as the Punjab University Act 1947,” he said.
These concerns were echoed by retired Punjab bureaucrat K.B.S. Sidhu, who described the proposal as a “constitutional ambush.” Sidhu argued that while the Centre might see the move as a way to streamline governance, for Punjab it represented a potential erasure of its historic claim to the city. “Placing Chandigarh under Article 240 is not about improving municipal water supply or building a smarter traffic grid. It is about who, truly, controls the city, whose voice counts in shaping its laws, and whether Punjab’s historic claim can be quietly buried under the soothing phrase ‘peace, progress and good government’,” he wrote.
For many in Punjab, the issue isn’t just legal—it’s deeply emotional. Since the 1966 reorganisation of Punjab, when Chandigarh became a joint capital for both Punjab and Haryana, the city has symbolized the region’s post-partition identity. Several political accords over the decades, as Times of India reminded readers, involved assurances from the Centre that Chandigarh would eventually be transferred to Punjab—a promise that remains unfulfilled to this day.
The current arrangement, established in 1984, has the Governor of Punjab serving as the Administrator of Chandigarh. The proposed amendment, however, would pave the way for the appointment of an independent Administrator or Lieutenant Governor, further distancing the city from Punjab’s direct influence. Yet, as Gupta clarified, “Article 239 (2) of the Constitution allows the President of India to appoint the Governor of a state as the administrator of an adjoining Union Territory… This course of action, however, is not mandatory, and the long-standing practice of appointing Punjab’s Governor as the administrator of the UT of Chandigarh—though—remains anchored in Article 239 (2).”
Despite the MHA’s repeated assurances that “the proposal in no way seeks to alter Chandigarh’s governance or administrative structure, nor does it aim to change the traditional arrangements between Chandigarh and the States of Punjab or Haryana,” skepticism lingered. Political parties across Punjab, including those usually at odds with each other, warned of “unprecedented protests” should the Centre move forward without broad-based consultation. The Aam Aadmi Party’s MP Vikramjit Singh urged all Punjab MPs to meet Amit Shah, calling the amendment “politically sensitive.”
The controversy, as The Indian Express observed, comes at a delicate time for the Punjab BJP, which is still trying to rebuild its base after the bruising 2020-2021 farm law protests. With local elections looming, the party’s leaders privately admitted that such decisions from Delhi “push us two steps back” in their efforts to win over voters. The issue also revived memories of other recent flashpoints between Punjab and the Centre—such as the Panjab University governance row and disputes over flood relief.
For now, the Centre appears to have backed away from introducing the Bill in the upcoming winter session of Parliament, promising further consultations and reiterating that “no final decision has been taken.” Yet, as the dust settles, the episode serves as a potent reminder of the city’s unique role in the region’s politics—and the deep-seated anxieties that any perceived shift in its status can provoke.
For Chandigarh’s residents and the people of Punjab, the debate is far from over. The city’s future, and who truly governs it, remains a question that will likely resurface, demanding answers—and perhaps, this time, a solution that respects both the letter and the spirit of India’s federal compact.
