What is row over Chandigarh and Article 240 as MHA says 'no final decision yet'

That suggestion, the bulletin said, forms part of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025, which the Centre plans to introduce in the Winter Session of Parliament.

After a political row erupted over a bulletin of Parliament, the Centre on Sunday clarified that “no final decision has been taken” on its proposal relating to Chandigarh’s administrative arrangements and stressed the move “does not aim to change traditional arrangements between the Union territory and Punjab and Haryana.”

The controversy began when a Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha bulletin showed the Government had proposed to include the Union territory of Chandigarh within the ambit of Article 240 of the Constitution -- a provision that empowers the President to make regulations for certain Union territories and, effectively, to legislate directly for them.

That suggestion, the bulletin said, forms part of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025, which the Centre plans to introduce in the Winter Session of Parliament.

Opposition voices in Punjab immediately interpreted the proposal as opening the door to an independent administrator for Chandigarh -- a post that would remove the Punjab Governor’s current dual charge as Administrator and revive a practice that existed after the 1966 reorganisation.

Reacting to the uproar, the Union Home Ministry framed the measure as a technical proposal to “simplify law-making” for the Union territory.

A ministry spokesperson was quoted saying, “The proposal only to simplify the central government's law-making process for the Union territory of Chandigarh is still under consideration with the central government. No final decision has been taken on this proposal.”

The statement said that the proposal “in no way seeks to alter Chandigarh's governance or administrative structure, nor does it aim to change ‘traditional arrangements between Chandigarh and the states of Punjab or Haryana’.”

The ministry added that “a suitable decision will be taken only after adequate consultations with all stakeholders, keeping in mind the interests of Chandigarh,” saying that “the central government has no intention of introducing any Bill to this effect in the upcoming Winter session of Parliament.”

But in Punjab the reaction has been vociferous. Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann called it a draconian move against the state, saying he “state government will not allow any conspiracy of the BJP-led NDA government to snatch Chandigarh from the state”.

“Chandigarh was, is and will ever remain an integral part of the state adding that the amendment being proposed by the Union government to include the capital city of Punjab in Article 240 of the Constitution of India, in alignment with other Union territories, in the ensuing session, will not be allowed. He said that though every parent state has sole right over its capital but grave injustice had been meted out to the state by denying its Capital to Punjab,” he said.

The Chief Minister said it was almost unprecedented for a parent state to be left without its own capital, as has happened with Punjab. He said that Punjab, being the parent state, has an unquestionable claim over Chandigarh, but successive central governments have committed a serious injustice by withholding the capital from the state.

Aam Aadmi Party national convener Arvind Kejriwal called the move a “direct attack” on Punjab’s “identity and constitutional rights,” posting that the attempt to “eliminate Punjab's rights over Chandigarh through constitutional amendment” was “not part of a simple move, but a direct attack on Punjab's identity and constitutional rights.”

Kejriwal added that the proposal amounted to “wounding the soul of Punjab” and vowed that “Chandigarh belongs to Punjab and will remain with Punjab.”

Leaders across party lines in Punjab reacted sharply to the report. Shiromani Akali Dal MP Harsimrat Kaur Badal said that with the amendment “Punjab will completely lose its right over Chandigarh,” calling the proposed change “a robbery of the rights of Punjab and also a violation of the principles of federal structure.”

Congress general secretary Randeep Singh Surjewala described the amendment to “amend Article 240” as “a debilitating assault on federalism,” urging that the move threaten the rights of both Haryana and Punjab under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.

Several opposition leaders urged unity in Punjab, called for all-party meetings and promised legal and political action to counter the Centre’s plan.

To place the row in constitutional terms: Article 240 of the Constitution gives the President the power to make regulations “for the peace, progress and good government” of specified Union territories -- examples listed in the text include the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, and Pondicherry.

The provision further states that any regulation so made may “repeal or amend any Act made by Parliament or any other law which is for the time being applicable to the Union territory,” and that such a regulation, when promulgated, has “the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament” for that territory.

The Article also contains safeguards in relation to territories, such as Pondicherry, that have, or later acquire, legislatures under Article 239A: once a legislature comes into being, the President’s regulation-making power ceases from the date of the first meeting of that legislature, except when that legislature is dissolved or suspended.

Historically, Chandigarh was administered independently after the reorganisation on November 1, 1966, with a chief secretary in charge.

Since June 1, 1984, the Punjab Governor has served as Administrator and the chief secretary’s role became that of an adviser.

Attempts in the past to restore an independent administrator -- notably the 2016 appointment of former IAS officer KJ Alphons -- were withdrawn after political opposition.

In August 2016, the Centre attempted to bring back the old system of having an independent administrator by naming Alphons to the post. But the move faced resistance from the then Punjab government under Parkash Singh Badal -- whose Shiromani Akali Dal was allied with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) -- as well as from the Congress and AAP, leading to the proposal being blocked.