Article 240 Under Fire: Why the Centre’s Move on Chandigarh Has Sparked a Political Earthquake?

 Introduction: A Constitutional Flashpoint

Chandigarh, the shared capital of Punjab and Haryana, may soon find itself at the centre of a constitutional firestorm. The Union government is reportedly planning to introduce the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025, which would bring Chandigarh under the ambit of Article 240, enabling the President to make regulations for its governance.

The move has triggered a fierce backlash from political quarters in Punjab, drawing sharp accusations that the Centre aims to dilute Punjab’s historic claim over its capital.

Credit - Wikipedia

Understanding Article 240: What Does It Actually Do?

At its core, Article 240 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President to frame regulations for certain Union Territories (UTs) for their “peace, progress and good government.” 

These regulations are not symbolic — they can repeal or amend Acts of Parliament applicable to the UT, and once promulgated, hold the same force as a parliamentary statute within that territory.

However, this power is circumscribed in one critical way: if a UT has a legislative body (under Article 239A), the President’s regulatory power ceases when the legislature meets — unless the legislature is suspended or dissolved. Historically, Article 240 has applied to UTs without their own full legislative assemblies — such as the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra & Nagar Haveli & Daman & Diu, and Pondicherry under certain conditions.

The power has been a constitutional mechanism to ensure Union administration in UTs that lack the full machinery of a state.

The Current Flashpoint: What’s in the 131st Amendment Bill

According to official bulletins, the 131st Amendment Bill, 2025, aims to formally include Chandigarh under Article 240. Under the proposed change:

• The President would have the authority to issue regulations for Chandigarh, just like for other UTs.

• It could pave the way for appointing an independent administrator (or a lieutenant governor), rather than the current arrangement in which the Governor of Punjab serves as Chandigarh’s administrator

• The government defends the proposal as an administrative reform: it would “simplify the process of law-making” for Chandigarh, according to a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) statement. 

Yet, the timing and political sensitivities make this far from a mere bureaucratic tweak.

Political Fallout: Punjab’s Blowback

The response in Punjab has been swift and harsh. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann described the move as a “grave injustice” and accused the Centre of conspiring to “snatch” Chandigarh from Punjab.

He argues that this isn’t just an administrative change — it undermines Punjab’s claim to its historical capital.

Opposition voices across the spectrum have joined in. Akali Dal, Congress, and AAP have all condemned the bill:

• Akali Dal president Sukhbir Singh Badal called it an “assault on the rights of Punjab.”

•  AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal framed the proposal as a federal overreach that “tears apart the federal structure.”

• Punjab Congress chief Amarinder Singh Raja Warring warned of “serious repercussions” and mobilisation to block the amendment.

•  The uproar has not just been political, but historical: critics point to past promises and agreements on Chandigarh.

Centre's Clarification — And Backtracking

Facing mounting backlash, the Ministry of Home Affairs swiftly issued a clarification. According to its statement, the amendment is still “under consideration” and is primarily aimed at simplifying legislation, not altering Chandigarh’s “traditional relationship” with Punjab or Haryana.

Some media reports suggest that the government may not proceed with the proposed amendment — at least not immediately. Political analysts see this as a partial retreat, though the core tension remains unresolved.

Legal and Constitutional Dimensions

This proposal raises deeper questions about the balance of power under India’s federal system:

• Centralisation vs Autonomy: Granting the President regulatory power over Chandigarh could significantly centralize authority. Critics argue that such concentration undermines the principle of local governance.

• Precedent: While Article 240 is not novel, its extension to a politically and historically sensitive UT like Chandigarh is unprecedented in its thrust.

• Constitutional Safeguards: The ability of the President to repeal or amend existing parliamentary laws for a UT through regulations — if misused — could potentially bypass democratic checks.

Some legal experts warn that giving an independent administrator too much power may disrupt the democratic accountability that a governor provides, especially in a territory like Chandigarh, which has complex state ties.

Broader Implications: Federalism and Identity

Beyond legalities, the clash taps into layers of identity, history, and federal politics:

• For Punjab, Chandigarh is not merely an administrative unit but a symbol of its political and cultural identity. Calls to “take away” the city resonate deeply.

• The debate also reflects growing tensions between the Union and states over territory and governance. Observers see this as part of a larger pattern of central consolidation.

• If the amendment succeeds, it may set a precedent for future interventions in other UTs or even states where the Centre seeks more direct control.

Possible Paths Forward

Several scenarios may play out:

1. Bill Withdrawal or Delay: Given the backlash, the Centre might abandon or delay the amendment. The MHA’s clarification could be a strategic de-escalation.

2. Conditional Compromise: The government could negotiate with Punjab leaders, proposing safeguards (like limited regulatory powers or checks) in exchange for support.

3. Legal Challenge: If passed, the amendment could face judicial review. Courts may be asked to examine whether such regulations violate the spirit of federalism or overstep on state rights.

4. Institutional Reform: Alternatively, the government may frame it as a reform measure: a re-imagined structure for UT governance that ensures both administrative efficiency and political balance.

Conclusion: A Constitutional Test Case

The proposed extension of Article 240 to Chandigarh marks more than a legislative tweak. It is shaping up as a constitutional test case — one that forces India to grapple with the tensions between administrative control and state identity, between central power and regional autonomy.

In the coming weeks, the debate will likely define not just how Chandigarh is governed, but how far the Centre can reach into the delicate architecture of union–state relations. Whether this becomes a turning point for India’s federal system depends on how both sides navigate the political, legal, and historical stakes.