What the Bill Would Have Meant?

The bulletin suggested the following objective:

To include Chandigarh under Article 240.

What Article 240 Allows

Article 240 empowers the President to make regulations for UTs such as:

• Andaman & Nicobar
• Lakshadweep
• Dadra & Nagar Haveli & Daman & Diu
• Puducherry (in special circumstances)

Presidential regulations can even override Acts of Parliament for that UT.

If Applied to Chandigarh

• The Centre would exercise direct regulatory powers.
• Chandigarh would function like UTs without a legislature.
• The Punjab Governor would no longer act as Administrator.
• An independent Administrator/Lieutenant Governor could be appointed.

Why Punjab Strongly Opposed the Proposal

Punjab views Chandigarh as:

• Its historical capital, created after Lahore went to Pakistan in 1947.
• A city built on Punjabi land and identity.
• A part of the state that was only temporarily shared with Haryana after 1966.

Important historical markers include:

• Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966: Chandigarh made a UT and joint capital.
• 1970 Announcement: Centre declared Chandigarh would go to Punjab (never implemented).
• Haryana was given 5 years to build a new capital, along with Central funding — yet continues to operate from Chandigarh.

Thus, any move that alters Chandigarh’s administrative balance is seen by Punjab as diluting its original claim.

Key Constitutional & Federal Concerns

• Sensitive state reorganisation legacy: Punjab–Haryana disputes since 1966.
• Administrator change: Shifts power dynamics and control over land, policing, and governance.
• Political symbolism: Chandigarh represents unresolved historical commitments.
• Inter-state balance: Haryana’s continued presence without building its own capital complicates decisions.
• Centralisation fears: Bringing Chandigarh under Article 240 may appear like expanding Union control.
• Legal complexity: A constitutional amendment affects the federal architecture.

Way Forward 

• Structured Centre–State dialogue involving Punjab, Haryana and the UT administration.
• Re-examining the 1970 commitments in light of current realities.
• Creating a balanced administrative model that ensures efficiency without disturbing federal sensitivities.
• Ensuring transparent communication to avoid escalations arising from ambiguous legislative listings.
• Exploring a time-bound roadmap on Chandigarh’s future status acceptable to all sides.