Journalism of Courage

Rethink on Chandigarh Bill after Punjab protests, Govt says final decision not taken

Proposal still under consideration, no intention to bring Bill in winter session: MHA

The Open Hand Monument — Chandigarh’s iconic symbol, designed by Le Corbusier to represent peace, unity, and the spirit of giving and receiving. (Express Photo)The clarification comes hours after the state BJP held a core committee meeting on Sunday morning, in which members unanimously resolved to protect Punjab’s interests. (Express Photo)
Advertisement

A day after a Bill to include Chandigarh in Article 240 of the Constitution, which empowers the President to make regulations for the Union Territory and legislate directly, figured in a tentative list of Lok Sabha business for the winter session next month and led to an uproar in Punjab, the Centre said Sunday the proposal was “still under consideration” and it had “no intention of introducing any Bill to this effect” in the upcoming session of Parliament.

The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill 2025, seeking to “include the Union Territory of Chandigarh in Article 240 of the Constitution of India, in alignment with other Union Territories without legislatures – namely, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, and Puducherry (when its Legislative Assembly is dissolved or suspended)”, was mentioned in Lok Sabha’s tentative list of 10 new Bills for “introduction, consideration and passing”.

Following protests in Punjab where parties saw the Bill as clearing the way for the appointment of an independent Administrator or Lt Governor – since 1984, the Governor of Punjab has been the Administrator of Chandigarh – and weakening the state’s claim to the city which is the capital of both Punjab and Haryana, there was clearly a rethink in New Delhi.

The Ministry of Home Affairs, in a post on X, said, “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 proposal in no way seeks to alter Chandigarh’s governance or administrative structure, nor does it aim to change the traditional arrangements between Chandigarh and the States of Punjab or Haryana.”

“A suitable decision will be taken only after adequate consultations with all stakeholders, keeping in mind the interests of Chandigarh. There is no need for any concern on this matter. The Central Government has no intention of introducing any Bill to this effect in the upcoming Winter Session of Parliament,” the MHA said.

The Opposition Congress targeted the government after the MHA statement. Congress communications in-charge Jairam Ramesh said, “Just yesterday the Parliament Bulletin for the forthcoming Winter Session had listed for introduction a Constitution Amendment Bill to enable the appointment of a full-time LG for Chandigarh. This was immediately and aggressively opposed by the INC and other parties in Punjab whose Governor is also the Administrator of Chandigarh.”

“The Union Home Ministry now says that it has no intention to introduce the Bill in the Winter Session. Yet another example of the Modi Govt’s FAST approach to governance – First Announce, Second Think,” Ramesh said on X.

Curated For You

Jatin Anand is an Assistant Editor with the national political bureau of The Indian Express. Over the last 16 years, he has covered governance, politics, bureaucracy, crime, traffic, intelligence, the Election Commission of India and Urban Development among other beats. He is an English (Literature) graduate from Zakir Husain Delhi College, DU & specialised in Print at the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), Chennai. He tweets @jatinpaul ... Read More

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Tags:
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
Edition
Install the Express App for
a better experience
Featured
Trending Topics
News
Multimedia
Follow Us
Express ExplainedWhat will it mean for Chandigarh if it is brought under Article 240?
X