What is Article 240? The fight for Chandigarh and its political consequences

The core of the controversy: What Article 240 means


At its heart, the debate revolves around a significant transfer of power. Currently, Chandigarh, serving as the joint capital of both Punjab and Haryana, is administered by the Governor of Punjab. This arrangement, in place since 1984, provides Punjab with a symbolic and administrative connection to the city carved out of its territory in 1966.

Bringing Chandigarh under Article 240 would fundamentally alter this dynamic. It would empower the President to make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of the territory, aligning its governance structure with Union Territories like Lakshadweep and Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.

Crucially, this would pave the way for appointing a dedicated Lieutenant Governor as the city’s administrator, severing its administrative link to Punjab and placing it under the Centre’s direct control.

Sweeping powers and a bypassed Parliament



The implications, as reported by The Indian Express, are profound. According to three-time MP Pawan Bansal, the change would grant the Centre sweeping powers. “Any Act made by Parliament or any other law applicable to the UT of Chandigarh could be repealed or amended merely by framing a regulation to that effect, bypassing Parliament, which alone, at present, is competent to enact any law for the UT,” Bansal was quoted as saying.

He illustrated this with a stark example: altering the tenure of the Chandigarh Mayor would no longer require parliamentary approval. A Joint Secretary in the Union government could simply sign a note on the President's behalf and the change would be implemented immediately.

Bansal argued that the present system has worked for decades and that reform should focus on empowering the municipal corporation, not centralising control.

A unified political backlash in Punjab



The proposal reportedly triggered an immediate and unified denunciation from Punjab’s political parties, all of whom interpreted it as a dilution of the state’s longstanding claim over its capital.

Arvind Kejriwal, convener of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party, described the move on X as a “direct assault on Punjab’s identity and constitutional rights,” stating it was “akin to wounding the soul of Punjab.” Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann termed it “against the interests of Punjab.”

The opposition was equally forceful. Congress general secretary Randeep Singh Surjewala called it a “debilitating assault on federalism,” while Shiromani Akali Dal president Sukhbir Singh Badal alleged a betrayal of the Centre’s commitment to eventually hand Chandigarh back to Punjab.

Even the BJP's Punjab unit balks



The strength of the opposition was such that it created a rift within the state's BJP unit. In a significant move, Punjab BJP chief Sunil Jakhar publicly diverged from the Centre's position, stating he had sought time with Union Home Minister Amit Shah to resolve the “confusion.” He emphatically called for the proposal to be withdrawn.

“To facilitate the administrative requirements of Chandigarh, the sentiments of Punjab cannot be ignored. Chandigarh is just not a geographical piece; the sentiments of Punjab are attached to it,” Jakhar stated, as reported by The Telegraph Online. He affirmed that the “Punjab BJP stands firmly with the interests of the state, whether it is the issue of Chandigarh or the waters of Punjab.”

A recurring flashpoint in federal relations



This is not the first time such a move has been attempted. As noted in the reports, the Centre sought to appoint an independent administrator in 2016 by naming former IAS officer KJ Alphons to the post, but was forced to back down after strong protests. The current arrangement itself dates back to a period of President’s Rule in Punjab, instituted to coordinate security during a peak in militancy.

The issue is further complicated by bureaucratic tensions. The Punjab government has previously accused the Chandigarh administration of replacing Punjab-cadre officers with those from other states, demanding that a 60:40 deputation ratio between Punjab and Haryana be maintained.

Despite the opposition, some voices, such as BJP leader was cited by Arun Sood as arguing the change could benefit Chandigarh. He told The Indian Express it could bring “additional budgetary provisions due to central oversight” and might even pave the way for a Legislative Assembly of its own in the future. A pause, but not a resolution



For now, the Centre has pressed pause. Yet, the fierce reaction underscores that Chandigarh remains a potent symbol of Punjabi identity and a litmus test for India’s federal balance. The proposal’s shelving may have quelled an immediate crisis, but the underlying tensions over the city’s governance and Punjab’s claim to it remain unresolved, ensuring that any future move will be scrutinised under the harshest of political lights.