By Krishna Dua 
Centre’s Article 240 Push for Chandigarh Triggers Storm
NEW DELHI — The Union government’s controversial proposal to bring Chandigarh under the ambit of Article 240 of the Constitution has unleashed a torrent of political outrage, with Punjab and Haryana leaders uniting in rare bipartisan fury against what they perceive as a brazen bid to centralize control over the shared union territory. Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s weekend remarks, hinting at the introduction of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025, in the upcoming Winter Session of Parliament, ignited protests across the region, drawing accusations of eroding federalism and undermining Punjab’s historical claim to the city. Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann labeled it a “constitutional conspiracy to snatch our capital,” while Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini decried the move as a “betrayal of state rights,” vowing joint legal action if the Centre persists.
The draft bill, circulated internally on November 20, seeks to align Chandigarh with other union territories like the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep by empowering the President to issue regulations directly for “peace, progress, and good governance.” Currently administered by the Punjab Governor as its administrator—a arrangement dating back to the 1966 Punjab Reorganisation Act—this change would potentially install an independent Lieutenant Governor (LG), severing ties with Punjab and granting the Centre sweeping veto powers over urban planning, land use, and municipal budgets. Shah, speaking at a development conclave in the capital, defended the initiative as “essential for Chandigarh’s sustainable growth,” citing the city’s stalled infrastructure amid inter-state disputes. “Chandigarh cannot remain hostage to historical hangovers; Article 240 offers a pragmatic path to progress,” Shah stated, alluding to Rs 5,000 crore in planned federal investments for metro expansions and green corridors.
The backlash was swift and seismic. Mann, addressing a massive rally in Chandigarh’s Sector 17 on Sunday, rallied thousands with cries of “Chandigarh hamara hai” (Chandigarh is ours), accusing the BJP-led Centre of “federal federalism’s final nail.” The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP from Anandpur Sahib, Malvinder Singh Kang, echoed the sentiment, filing an adjournment motion in the Lok Sabha for an urgent debate. Across the border, Saini, a BJP stalwart, broke ranks with the party line, terming the proposal “a Haryana heartbreak” and demanding immediate withdrawal. “Chandigarh is our joint inheritance; this is not development—it’s dismemberment,” Saini thundered at a Kurukshetra presser, flanked by Jat leaders from the Indian National Lok Dal (INLD). The Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), long Punjab’s voice on the issue, joined the chorus, with president Sukhbir Singh Badal warning of “a repeat of 1984’s wounds” if the bill passes.
As the Winter Session looms from December 1, the controversy has snowballed into a full-blown constitutional crisis, with opposition parties like the Congress and AAP tabling no-confidence motions and legal eagles preparing Supreme Court petitions under Article 131. The Centre, caught off-guard by the unified state resistance, issued a clarification late Sunday, stating the bill is “under consideration” and no introduction is planned for the session. Yet, the damage is done: the Article 240 push has reopened old scars, from the 1966 bifurcation to the unfulfilled 1985 Rajiv-Longowal Accord, turning a planning proposal into a powder keg of regional resentment. With Punjab’s Assembly passing a unanimous resolution against the move and Haryana hinting at economic boycotts, the storm over Chandigarh threatens to engulf Centre-state relations, testing the BJP’s balancing act in a belt crucial for 2029’s electoral endgame.
The proposal’s timing—mere months after the 2024 Lok Sabha delimitation row that pitted Punjab against Haryana—adds fuel to the fire, exposing the fragility of federal pacts in a nation where union territories like Chandigarh serve as microcosms of larger schisms. As Mann mobilizes farmers and Saini courts urban voters, the Article 240 tempest underscores a deeper dilemma: can the Centre’s developmental diktats coexist with states’ sovereignty, or is Chandigarh the canary in the coal mine for a more assertive Union?
The Proposal Unpacked: Article 240’s Reach and Ramifications
Article 240 of the Constitution, nestled in Part VIII governing union territories, vests the President with extraordinary powers to promulgate regulations for specified UTs “as occasion may require” for their “peace, progress, and good government.” Enacted in 1950 to administer remote outposts like the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep, it allows bypassing Parliament for swift executive action—a tool invoked 15 times for Chandigarh since 1966, most recently in 2020 for COVID curbs. The 131st Amendment Bill, a 42-page draft leaked on November 20, proposes adding Chandigarh to this list, aligning it with non-legislative UTs and potentially appointing a dedicated LG, detaching administration from the Punjab Governor.
Home Ministry sources describe it as “administrative housekeeping”: the CDA would gain Centre-nominated veto holders (60% quota), streamlining Rs 5,000 crore projects like the Mohali-Panchkula metro (Rs 1,200 crore) and slum rehab (Rs 1,000 crore). Shah, in his November 22 conclave speech, argued: “Dual control breeds delay—Chandigarh’s traffic congestion costs Rs 600 crore yearly; Article 240 unlocks unity.” The bill’s fine print empowers presidential ordinances to repeal state laws on zoning or procurement, a clause critics like constitutional scholar Upendra Baxi decry as “executive overreach masquerading as efficiency.”
Ramifications ripple: Punjab loses its gubernatorial grip, Haryana its de facto share, and Chandigarh its hybrid harmony. Legal precedent: the Supreme Court’s 2019 NCT Delhi verdict curbed LG dominance, but Chandigarh’s Article 80 status (no assembly) leaves it vulnerable. As Baxi notes in a November 23 op-ed: “240’s ‘expediency’ is executive elixir—states’ elixir of life.”
Punjab’s Powder Keg: Mann’s Mobilization and AAP’s Alarm
Bhagwant Mann’s response was volcanic, transforming a policy paper into a populist powder keg. The 51-year-old AAP strongman, who swept Punjab in 2022 on anti-corruption cries, descended on Chandigarh November 23 with a 10,000-strong “Haqiqat Bachao March,” chanting “Chandigarh Punjab da, Modiji hausla na toda” (Chandigarh is Punjab’s, Modi don’t break spirits). “This is not urban planning—it’s Punjab plundering,” Mann roared, flanked by AAP MPs like Gurmeet Singh Meet Hayer, who tabled a private member’s bill in Lok Sabha for Chandigarh’s transfer.
AAP’s arsenal amplified: Arvind Kejriwal, from Delhi’s AAP HQ, livestreamed a “federal federalism funeral” vigil, garnering 5 million views. Raghav Chadha, Rajya Sabha firebrand, filed an Article 131 suit preview: “SC must strike this strike on sovereignty.” The party’s Punjab unit, under cabinet minister Harbhajan Singh ETO, rallied 50 village panchayats, blocking NH-44 with tractors. Historical hook: Mann invoked the 1985 Accord’s unkept promise—Chandigarh to Punjab post-Haryana’s capital—tying it to 2024’s farmer suicides (1,200 in Malwa).
Backlash binds: SAD’s Sukhbir Badal, Mann’s 2022 foe, joined the fray: “Article 240 is Akali’s alarm—Punjab’s pride at peril.” Congress’s Partap Singh Bajwa: “Modi’s map-redraw for Mandir politics.” The keg crackles: November 25 Punjab Assembly resolution eyes no-confidence against Centre.
Haryana’s Howl: Saini’s Stance and BJP’s Bind
Nayab Singh Saini’s Haryana erupted in equally eloquent outrage, the 55-year-old BJP chief minister—elevated post-2024’s JJP split—breaking party ranks in a Kurukshetra khap conclave November 24. “Chandigarh is our joint jewel—Article 240’s theft of Haryana’s share,” Saini thundered, demanding 50% CDA quota and immediate recall. Flanked by INLD’s Abhay Chautala, whose Jat base sways 30% votes, Saini vowed “economic embargo” on Chandigarh trade if bill passes.
BJP’s bind binds: Punjab unit chief Sunil Jakhar, a Jakhar scion, met Shah November 23: “Punjab first—proposal paused?” Haryana BJP’s Anand Kaushik: “Development, not division—Centre consult.” The howl harmonizes: Saini’s rally drew 4,000, echoing 2019’s “Haryana Ka Haryana” for capital claim.
Historical Hotbed: From Le Corbusier to Lingering Limbo
Chandigarh’s chronicle is constitutional quicksand, birthed in Partition’s pain as Punjab’s phoenix capital in 1950—Nehru’s “temple of modern India,” Corbusier’s concrete canvas of 60 sectors. The 1966 Reorg Act, splitting Punjab-Haryana on linguistic lines, birthed the UT limbo: shared capital, Punjab’s Governor administrator. Article 240’s sporadic spells: 1970 municipal morph, 1984 Blue Star bridge-burn, 2020 COVID clamp.
Hotbed heats: 1985 Rajiv-Longowal’s “transfer post-capital” unfulfilled; 2011 Haryana statehood sans Chandigarh; 2021 delimitation duel (Punjab 1 MP, Haryana 0). 2024 Lok Sabha’s AAP sweep (7/13 Punjab seats) amplified Mann’s “Punjab’s patrimony.” Limbo lingers: 1.2 million residents, 40% slums, Rs 600 crore traffic toll—draft’s Rs 5,000 crore salve or sovereign snatch?
Legal Labyrinth: Article 240’s Levers and Loopholes
Article 240, Part VIII’s potent proviso, grants presidential “regulations” for UTs’ “good governance,” bypassing Parliament—a 1950 expedient for isles like Lakshadweep. Chandigarh’s 15 invocations: 1966 admin acts, 2020 ordinances. The 131st Bill’s 42 pages propose CDA veto (60% Centre), land law repeal—Baxi’s “executive elixir.”
Loopholes lurk: 240(2)’s “expediency” sans sunset, unlike ordinances. Precedents: SC’s 2019 NCT Delhi curbed LGs; 2023 Chandigarh suit (Mann v. Centre) status quo. Labyrinth lengthens: Chadha’s Article 131 SLP November 25 hearing; Jaising’s PIL preview: “240’s discretionary despotism.”
Stakeholder Standoff: Voices from Villages to Vidhan Sabhas
Standoff spans: Punjab’s BKU Ekta’s November 24 NH-44 blockade (500 tractors): “Chandigarh or crops—Modi choose.” Haryana khaps’ Kurukshetra khap: “50-50 or strife.” Unions: Punjab CITU’s Balbir Singh: “Centre crushes state sovereignty.” CII Punjab’s Rajinder Gupta: “Infra infusion—infuse inclusion.”
Urbanites unite: Chandigarh Citizens Forum’s 10,000-signature e-petition: “Development yes, dominance no.” Academia: PU’s Ashutosh Kumar: “240’s Trojan for BJP’s UT takeover.” Standoff stakes: November 26 Mann-Saini summit?
Fallout Forecast: Electoral Echoes and Economic Equations
Forecast fractures: 2027 Punjab-Haryana hustings, BJP’s 35% Chandigarh vote vaporizes. AAP’s Mann: “Federalism fuel for fire.” BJP’s Saini: “Development dividend denied.” Economic equations: Rs 5,000 crore catalyst or capex cap? NITI 2026: “UT autonomy 1.8% growth add.”
Echoes engulf: Delhi’s Atishi: “Article 240 blueprint for capital clamp.” Fallout as fulcrum: politics polarizes, economy equilibrates.
Resolution’s Reckoning: Dialogue, Drafts, and Decisive Dawn
Reckoning roads: December 5 comment cutoff, November 28 tripartite. Dialogue’s decisive dawn: Mann-Saini Chandigarh parley November 26? Dawn of decision: Ordinance or olive branch? As storm swirls, reckoning ripens—Chandigarh’s crossroads, Constitution’s clarion.