CENTRE BACKS OFF FROM CHANDIGARH BILL AFTER PUNJAB OUTCRY

Home Ministry says proposal only under consideration; no move in Winter Session as political backlash intensifies

KalimNews, Chandigarh, November 24, 2025 :  In the wake of widespread political uproar across Punjab, the Central Government on Sunday withdrew its immediate plan to introduce the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the upcoming Winter Session of Parliament. The Bill, which appeared in the tentative list of Lok Sabha business, proposed bringing Chandigarh under Article 240 of the Constitution—placing it in the same category as Union Territories directly administered by Lieutenant Governors appointed by the President.

The listing of the Bill triggered concerns across the political spectrum in Punjab, where parties viewed it as an attempt to alter Chandigarh’s longstanding administrative structure and weaken Punjab’s historical claim to the city. Currently, the Punjab Governor serves as the Administrator of Chandigarh, a practice in place since 1984.

As criticism mounted, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued an official clarification stating that the Centre had “no intention of introducing any Bill to this effect in the upcoming Winter Session of Parliament”. While acknowledging that a proposal regarding Chandigarh is indeed under consideration, the ministry emphasised that it was solely meant to simplify the Central Government’s law-making process for the Union Territory and did not intend to alter Chandigarh’s governance model or its traditional administrative arrangements with Punjab and Haryana. The ministry assured that any final decision would be taken only after detailed consultations with all stakeholders, adding that there was “no need for any concern”.

The Centre’s statement followed an urgent virtual meeting of senior Punjab and central BJP leaders held on Sunday morning. Attended by national general secretary Tarun Chugh, Minister of State for Railways Ravneet Singh Bittu, Punjab BJP chief Sunil Jakhar, organisation secretary Mantri Srinivasulu and working president Ashwani Sharma, the meeting reportedly concluded that the proposed Bill should be reconsidered. Despite being informed by central leaders that the amendment would not affect Punjab’s interests, the consensus among Punjab BJP members was that public sentiment in the state could not be ignored.

After the meeting, Jakhar said the Punjab BJP would seek a meeting with Union Home Minister Amit Shah to convey the depth of public sentiment. He stressed that Chandigarh holds deep emotional significance for Punjab and that any move affecting its status must be handled with utmost sensitivity. Posting later on X, he reaffirmed that the interests of Punjab remain paramount and that “whatever confusion has arisen regarding Chandigarh will be resolved through discussions with the government”.

Opposition parties reacted sharply to the Centre’s clarification. Congress leaders accused the government of merely postponing the move rather than withdrawing it altogether. Punjab Congress president Amrinder Singh Raja Warring questioned the Centre’s intentions, asking what guarantee existed that the Bill would not reappear in a future session. Congress communications chief Jairam Ramesh criticised the government’s approach, calling it another example of the Centre’s “First Announce, Second Think” style of governance.

The ruling Aam Aadmi Party in Punjab denounced the proposal as a “direct attack on Punjab’s identity” and a threat to federalism. Shiromani Akali Dal leader and former Union minister Harsimrat Kaur Badal warned that Punjab would “lose its rights over Chandigarh” if the amendment proceeded, and the party has convened an emergency core committee meeting to decide its next steps. Congress general secretary Randeep Singh Surjewala echoed concerns, describing the planned amendment as a “debilitating assault on federalism”.

The controversy stems from the Bill’s proposal to insert Chandigarh into Article 240, which empowers the President to make regulations governing Union Territories such as Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, and those formed by the merger of Dadra and Nagar Haveli with Daman and Diu. For many in Punjab, placing Chandigarh in this category raised fears of installing an independent Administrator or Lieutenant Governor, thereby diluting the city’s symbolic and administrative link with Punjab.

Historically, after the reorganisation of Punjab in 1966, Chandigarh was administered independently by a Chief Secretary. However, since June 1984, the Punjab Governor has held the dual charge of Chandigarh Administrator, with the Chief Secretary re-designated as adviser to the Administrator. In 2016, the Centre attempted—unsuccessfully—to revert to the earlier model by appointing former IAS officer K.J. Alphons as a separate Administrator.

The latest controversy marks the second time in a fortnight that the Centre has reversed a move affecting Punjab. On November 8, the Ministry of Education withdrew a contentious notification seeking to alter the governance structure of Panjab University, over which Punjab has asserted historical and legal rights.

The Centre has now stated that while discussions on simplifying administrative procedures for Chandigarh continue, no legislation altering its governance model will be brought during the Winter Session scheduled from December 1 to 19. The assurance, however, has not dispelled political concerns in Punjab, where parties remain vigilant about any future attempts to modify the Union Territory’s constitutional position