Is the Centre's plan to bring Chandigarh under Article 240 stirring political turmoil in Punjab?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Centre's proposal to bring Chandigarh under Article 240 has ignited fierce political debates in Punjab, with key leaders denouncing the move as an attack on Punjab's sovereignty. This article explores the potential implications of this constitutional shift and the responses from various political factions.
Key Takeaways
- Centre's proposal to impose Article 240 on Chandigarh ignites political tensions.
- Major parties in Punjab unite in opposition, viewing it as an attack on regional rights.
- Historical claims over Chandigarh complicate the situation.
- Key political figures are vocal in their criticism, promising to fight the proposal.
- The outcome may significantly impact Punjab's political landscape.
Chandigarh, Nov 23 (NationPress) A significant political uproar has unfolded in Punjab following the Centre's indication of its plan to bring Chandigarh under Article 240 of the Constitution, a decision that would grant the President the authority to directly formulate regulations for this Union Territory.
Currently, Chandigarh is governed by the Governor of Punjab and acts as the shared capital for both Punjab and Haryana.
A bulletin from Parliament has suggested that the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025, is set to be presented during the upcoming Winter Session starting on December 1, triggering protests from various political factions in Punjab.
Political parties, including AAP, Congress, and Sriromani Akali Dal, have fiercely condemned the proposal, labeling it as 'anti-Punjab.'
They contend that placing Chandigarh under Article 240, which presently applies to regions like the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, and Puducherry, would jeopardize Punjab's historic claim over the city.
Established as a Union Territory in 1966 during the bifurcation of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh has served as a co-capital.
While the Punjab Governor also functions as the administrator for Chandigarh, local political figures have persistently asserted that Chandigarh is rightfully Punjab's, advocating for Haryana to establish its own capital.
Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann criticized the central government's decision, accusing the BJP-led Centre of plotting to seize Punjab's capital.
'Chandigarh was, is, and will always be a vital part of our state,' he stated, emphasizing that villages were sacrificed to construct the city, and that Punjab holds the legitimate claim.
AAP national convener and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal also lambasted the initiative, referring to it as an 'attack' on Punjab's identity.
He remarked that 'history bears witness: Punjabis have never surrendered to tyranny' and maintained that Punjab, having significantly contributed to the nation through 'security, grains, and water,' was now being deprived of its rights.
Punjab Congress chief Amarinder Singh Raja Warring deemed the situation as 'utterly unwarranted' and cautioned that 'any moves to take it away will lead to severe consequences.'
He urged BJP leaders in Punjab to clarify their position, asserting that 'your stance today will determine whether you stand with Punjab or against it.'
Sukhbir Singh Badal, chief of the Akali Dal and former Deputy Chief Minister, claimed that the 'anti-Punjab Bill' represents a 'direct assault on the federal structure' and vowed to combat it 'on all fronts,' reiterating that 'Punjab's claim over Chandigarh is non-negotiable.'
Point of View
This development signifies a critical moment in India's political landscape, especially regarding federalism and regional rights. The reactions from Punjab's political parties highlight a strong sense of regional identity and the importance of maintaining established governance structures. It is essential for the central government to navigate these sentiments carefully to avoid further escalation of tensions.
NationPress
23/11/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the significance of Article 240?
Article 240 of the Indian Constitution allows the President to make regulations for Union Territories. This can lead to direct control over governance in these regions.
Why are political parties opposed to this move?
Political parties in Punjab view the proposal as a direct threat to the state's claim over Chandigarh, which has been a joint capital since Haryana's formation.
What historical context is important in this discussion?
Chandigarh was established as a Union Territory in 1966 during the bifurcation of Punjab and Haryana, and the local sentiment strongly associates it with Punjab.
What are the potential repercussions of this proposal?
If implemented, the proposal could lead to significant political unrest in Punjab, as local leaders have already expressed intentions to resist the change.
How does this affect Chandigarh's administration?
Currently, the Governor of Punjab administers Chandigarh, and changes under Article 240 could shift that dynamic, increasing central control.
