UNION VERSUS TERRITORY

A proposed constitutional tweak set off a political storm in Punjab, reopening old wounds over Chandigarh's status and symbolism

- ANILESH S. MAHAJAN

WHEN A TERSE LINE ANNOUNCING A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL "to amend the Constitution to bring Chandigarh under Article 240" appeared in the Lok Sabha bulletin on November 21, it triggered immediate alarm in Punjab. The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025, was proposed for the upcoming winter session. If passed, it would have allowed the President to appoint a separate Lieutenant Governor for the Union Territory (UT) and issue regulations with the force of law. For many in Punjab, it signified central control getting reinforced over an iconic city entwined with the state's post-Independence identity.

The reaction was swift. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann accused the Centre of conspiring to snatch Punjab's capital. The Shiromani Akali Dal called it a "direct assault on Punjab's rights", while the Congress demanded the withdrawal of what it termed a "provocative and unnecessary" move. The BJP's Punjab unit, anticipating political blowback ahead of the 2027 election, moved fast to distance itself. State president Sunil Jakhar insisted Chandigarh was "an inseparable part of Punjab and said he would urge the Centre to reconsider.

Initially, officials in the Union home ministry framed the bill as a procedural update to streamline governance. But in Punjab, it reopened a wound dating back to 1966, when its reorganisation created Haryana, and Chandigarh was designated a UT and the shared capital of both states. Within two days of the backlash, the ministry paused the move, promised consultations, and said the bill will not be introduced in the winter session.

WHY IT'S A SENSITIVE ISSUE

The sensitivity stems from Chandigarh's unusual evolution and status.