Jaibans Singh
On 21 November, 2025 a parliamentary bulletin was released by the office of the Rajya Sabha. In the category of Legislative Business (A), the bills that were proposed to be moved in the winter session of the parliament were listed. On serial nine was the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025 whose purpose was listed as, “To include the Union Territory of Chandigarh in Article 240 of the Constitution of India in alignment with other Union Territories without legislature…..” The motion proposed was, “for consideration and passing.”
The notification drew immediate and strong opposition from all political parties and many institutions of Punjab. It was widely believed that the move would enable the centre to levy central acts, reduce the administrative control of Punjab on Chandigarh and thereby reduce the claim of the state on Chandigarh.
BJP, Punjab stated its intention to speak with the Union Government on the subject. “To facilitate the administrative requirements of Chandigarh, the sentiments of Punjab cannot be ignored. Chandigarh is not just a geographical piece. Sentiments of Punjab are attached to it. There should be no ambiguity about it,” said Sunil Jakhar, State President of BJP, Punjab.
The very next day, on 22 November, the Union Home Ministry gave an official clarification that, “the matter of inclusion of Chandigarh in Article 240 of the Constitution was still under consideration and it had no intention of introducing any Bill to this effect in the upcoming session of Parliament.” The clarification leaves open the door for an introduction of the bill at a later date.
The interest of the Union Government in Chandigarh is due to it being a Union Territory (UT) directly administered by the centre. It is, therefore, natural, for the Union Government to take steps towards ushering reforms to modernise the functioning of the UT. Undoubtedly, there is administrative logic behind the initiatives that the central government proposes. They will streamline administration and make it more responsive to the needs of the people.
Emotional Connection of Punjabis to Chandigarh
The problems arise from the history of Chandigarh and the emotional connection that the people of Punjab have with it. They do not take kindly to any process that is even remotely perceived as an attempt to wean away the UT from Punjab and Punjabis. The residents of Chandigarh also feel that they could lose democratic oversight if too much power flows from central regulations.
All Punjabis, especially the farming community of Sikhs, have shed blood for their land over centuries. They are known to fight to the end even for an inch of land. How can any government even think that these noble people will allow such intrusions in their life and culture?
Punjabis know that the current status has been created by duplicity of previous regimes, mainly those of the Congress party. They are looking for a Union Government that can right the wrong rather than cement it for all times to come.
It is in the interest of all Union Governments, regardless of the party in power, to nurture the love that ethnic communities residing in border areas of the nation have for the land because it is this love which is keeping our enemies in check. If the love goes, Pakistan will get a free run into the country. Let it not be forgotten that Pakistan has established its kinship with Punjab through shared Punjabi identity and with Jammu and Kashmir through shared religious affinity. The country has already leveraged this evil game-plan in both areas and failed. It is waiting for an opportunity to strike again. Would it be wise to provide this opportunity due to petty avoidable considerations?
Role of the Central Government in Creation of Chandigarh
After the partition of India, Lahore, the historical capital of Punjab went to Pakistan. East Punjab that became a part of India was left without a capital city. Initially, Shimla was designated as the capital of East Punjab but found to be inadequate due to the hill terrain and space limitations. Post Partition, Punjab faced acute challenges due to the refugee influx. It was also feeling a deep financial crunch.
Under the circumstances, the Union Government took on the responsibility of creating Chandigarh as a capital city for Punjab. The legal authority for the creation of the capital city was provided by, The Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act 1952.
The Government of India chose the present location of Chandigarh near the Shivalik foothills, due to its central location, climate, water access and terrain. The centre acquired about 36 villages, mostly from the Kharar area of District Ambala and also from Manimajra and Chandigarh itself.
The central government financed, planned and executed the project. To ensure rapid and uniform development, it commissioned modern planners like Le Corbusier to create a city that would symbolize a new, modern, independent India.
The derivative is that neither Punjab nor Haryana can take credit for the creation of Chandigarh. It was a project conceived and fructified by the then Government of India. The displaced villages were paid due compensation as per rules under The Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act 1952.
Justice, however, demands that if the centre helped Punjab in creation of its capital city it must give a similar benefit to Haryana for having separated the state from its capital city because of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.
Haryana’s Historical Relationship with Punjab
The modern state of Haryana has no historical or cultural relationship with Punjab. Historically, it had closer cultural and social ties to Delhi and Western Uttar Pradesh. During the period of Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire, the region was known as the Delhi Subah and functioned as an adjunct to Delhi. The British East India Company acquired the area in 1803 and transferred it to the North-Western Provinces (present day Uttar Pradesh) in 1832.
The people of the Haryana region actively participated in the First War of Independence in 1857. Following the suppression of the revolt, the British government separated the region from the North-Western Provinces and merged it with the Punjab province in 1858 as a political punishment.
Ambala, however, was under the control of the Sikhs since 1763 when it was invaded by the Misls. It was ruled by the Shergill family of the Nishanwalia Misl. The first ruler was Sardar Gurbaksh Singh. After his death in 1786, his youngest widow, Mai Daya Kaur, ruled for 37 years until her death in 1823.Mai Daya Kaur died without a male heir and the British took over the princely state on the basis of the doctrine of lapse. Ambala was formally established as a district by the British in 1847.
The area of Kharar in district Ambala from where the villages were displaced to make Chandigarh had a significant Sikh population and a strong Punjabi influence. They had a significant Muslim population that migrated to Pakistan. The land was given to the Sikhs who came from Pakistan and then acquired for making Chandigarh.
From the above, it becomes apparent that the modern state of Haryana did not have any significant role in the creation of the city of Chandigarh.
The Haryana leadership, therefore, should follow the path of justice and righteousness and give to Punjab what rightfully belongs to the state. Taking a few villages in lieu is not going to give Haryana any more prestige and financial clout than it already has. In fact, an addition of such real estate will cause avoidable integration issues.
The Iconic Sukhna Lake of Chandigarh
The Political History of Chandigarh
Conceived as a capital city of then undivided Punjab (that included Haryana and parts of Himachal Pradesh along with the present day Punjab) Chandigarh came up by 1953 as a modern city. It remained a part of undivided Punjab for about a decade and was an assembly constituency of the state.
The status of Chandigarh went into arbitration due to the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The leaders of the time designated it as a Union Territory as an interim measure. The Union Territory was to be the seat of Government of the states of Punjab and Haryana.
Later, many attempts were made by different Congress regimes to settle the matter. Proposals evolved around giving to Haryana parts of Punjab that were contiguous to it in lieu of Chandigarh. The last such attempt was the Rajiv-Longowal Accord of 1985 which also failed since it was an accord and not an act of parliament.
Three commissions, Mathew Commission in January 1986 followed by the Venkatramaiah Commission, and then Desai Commission were constituted to implement the Rajiv-Longowal accord. The commissions universally recommended the transfer of Chandigarh to Punjab but consensus on the areas to be given to Haryana in lieu could not be reached and hence the recommendations were not implemented.
Initially, Chandigarh was administered by a Chief Commissioner who was a bureaucrat. In 1984, the Governor of Punjab was designated as administrator of Chandigarh under Article 239 of the Constitution. The reason put forth for this shift was the need to regulate the UT better in the environment of militancy.
Notably, the changeover took place when Punjab was under President’s rule. The first Governor to become administrator of Chandigarh was Arjan Singh, a known loyalist of the Gandhi family. It is quite apparent that the conspiracy to gain full political control over Chandigarh was hatched and fructified by the Congress as a part of its policy to control militancy in Punjab.
In August 2016, the Centre reversed policy and again appointed an independent administrator in Chandigarh. The first to hold the post was former IAS officer K J Alphons. The said move was withdrawn after stiff opposition from the then Punjab chief minister, Parkash Singh Badal, who was part of the NDA.
The political leadership of Punjab wants to sell a narrative to the people of Punjab that it is quite okay for Chandigarh to continue as a Union Territory so long as the administrator is the Governor of Punjab. There seems to be no logic in this argument since a bureaucrat would any day be more unbiased than a political entity.
The Layout of Chandigarh
With an area spanning 114 sq km, Chandigarh is the second smallest Union Territory in India the first being Lakshadweep at 32 sq km. The third smallest, Puducherry, at 479 sq km is four times larger than Chandigarh. The largest Union Territory is Ladakh at 59,146 sq km.
Chandigarh has a small population of approximately 1.5 million. The city comprises 56 sectors of which the capitol complex in one corner houses the secretariat, legislature assembly, and High Court. Both Punjab and Haryana are jointly using the capitol complex government buildings that were conceived for a single government by the architects of Chandigarh. The High Court is also common to both Haryana and Punjab.
There are many office buildings spread across sectors which are divided between Punjab, Haryana, and the Chandigarh Administration. There are some Haryana office buildings in Sector 33 that came up later.
The residential sectors of Chandigarh are elitist in nature with families in their second or third generation residing there. A big portion of the population comprises senior citizens whose children have gone abroad. A large chunk of the residents is from Punjab though some hailing from Haryana and Himachal Pradesh also have residence here. Rules do not permit separate floor wise sale of a residential complex. Therefore, only the very rich can afford houses in the city. There is an industrial complex which is not very significant, the remaining economy is based on markets and shopping centres.
The strategic significance of the city is derived from it being a seat of Government of two states and the highest court of the same two states. Beyond that, it has a charm and aura that attracts the very rich.
The area has developed in a circular manner. Satellite cities of Mohali (Punjab) and Panchkula (Haryana) have enveloped Chandigarh which gives it the new name of Tri-city. Both governments have started making their respective office complexes in these two areas also. Any decision regarding Chandigarh has to give deep thought to the eco-system that has developed around the UT, it should not feel unnecessary upheaval.
Chandigarh is, therefore, a small city with a mature and upper class citizenry resides. It has a municipal council. It does not pose as heavy administrative challenges and can function quite efficiently with a lean and efficient administrative set-up.
The Joint Legislative Assembly of Punjab and Haryana
The Governance of Chandigarh
It cannot be denied that the governance model of Chandigarh is complex and almost unmanageable with too many centres of power functions at cross purpose to each other. This can be exemplified from the top level bureaucratic set-up. The Deputy Commissioner of Chandigarh is from the Haryana cadre whereas the Senior Superintendent of the Police is from Punjab cadre. Further, the Home Secretary is from Haryana cadre and Finance Secretary is from Punjab cadre. Obviously, it is difficult for an administrator (governor) whose prime responsibility is gubernatorial in nature, to run such a rag-tag establishment efficiently.
Chandigarh has always followed extension of other state laws to fulfil its legislative requirements, which is always a compromise to its original requirements. The parliament has enacted only two legislations for Chandigarh since 1966. This has resulted in legislative gaps over time with no constitutional rationality or uniform governance structures.
It is not without reason that Manish Tiwari, the sitting Member of Parliament from Chandigarh has stated that, “The governance structures of Chandigarh have become completely fossilised and are unable to either resolve pending administrative issues or even take a long view of the future developmental imperatives of Chandigarh.” When he accepts that a rot has set in, why is he not taking affirmative action to stem the same?
Definitely the Union Government cannot be faulted for its attempt to find a solution to this rapidly deteriorating situation. There is a need to bring in faster and more decisive governance in Chandigarh with a swift response to administrative, law-and-order, or urban planning challenges. Uniform and centralized policy implementation is necessary to ensure good governance.
Most importantly special regulations are required to maintain the iconic aura of the “city beautiful.” This would require better real estate control, unbiased commercial zoning, sound financial health and investment policies along with a host of other factors.
There is, however, a need to evolve a need based template for the administration of Chandigarh. In consideration of its small geographic area, the population and socio-economic structure, a lean and efficient government model can be worked out.
The Way Forward
The need to reform the administration process in Chandigarh is well established and an attempt to this effect by the Union Government that is responsible for the area has merit. However, a template being used in other Union Territories cannot be applied to Chandigarh in view of its size, location, population structure, political importance, historical and social significance. A visionary template acceptable to all should be evolved.
The criticality of the situation needs to be understood by all stakeholders. A mature attempt to resolve issues in a time bound manner through debate, discussion and lowering of emotions is necessary. The disinformation and misinformation that is spread through self-serving and vitriolic political posturing whenever the Union Government attempts to fulfil its duty needs to cease. A failure in achieving this would lead to deterioration of the beautiful city that is the pride of Punjab and the nation.
Both Punjab and Haryana have to realise that they are doing a great disservice to their people by holding their seat of governance in dilapidated and horrifying structures that they share jointly in Chandigarh. The common man of both states is first travelling long distances to reach the capital and then criss-crossing the city to visit various offices. It is a harrowing experience.
The two states should take a leaf from the Union Government that has moved out from the colonial of north block, south block and parliament house to a brand new central vista redevelopment plan. They should also look at states like Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Telangana, Jharkhand, Assam, Odisha and Maharashtra that are going in for new complexes to improve upon their efficiency.
Both Punjab and Haryana deserve a new capital complex and its construction should be disassociated from the territorial identity of Chandigarh
It is historically well established that the modern state of Haryana has no affinity whatsoever with Chandigarh that is unequivocally a part of Punjab. Its present constituency is also predominantly Punjabi. It is time to set right the wrong that was perpetuated upon Punjab almost five decades back.
A visionary and magnanimous unilateral gesture of handing over Chandigarh to Punjab without any strings attached will build trust and open fantastic new avenues for social, economic and cultural relationship between the two states. Of course, such areas of Chandigarh where there is a predominance of population from Haryana should go to the state.
Under Indian law, Parliament can alter the boundaries of any state or Union Territory under Article 3 of the Constitution. It should initiate the process through internal consultations with all stake-holders. However, no advice is binding on the Union Government, it should hear all and then do that which is correct in the eyes of law and justice. It can also constitute an unbiased commission to give recommendations for the final award. In the next phase, it can use its majority to transfer Chandigarh to Punjab through a parliamentary act or amendment of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.
Concluding Remarks
It is very clear that Chandigarh should be a part of Punjab. Maintaining a status quo on the issue does not meet the ends of justice. A wrong perpetuated many decades back has to be set right.
The people of two states cannot be made to suffer governance deficit due to a blinkered politically motivated approach of their leadership. They deserve a capital complex that is modern and approachable.
Debate and discussion with all stakeholders needs to be initiated to reach a consensus. The approach has to be directed towards finding a solution and not playing to the gallery for petty political brownie points. People have to be prepared with dissemination of correct factual information. Undoubtedly a correct and righteous approach will face many challenges, but then, this is where the difference between a leader and a statesman become visible.