A day ahead of a bill to include Chandigarh in Article 240 of the constitution, bringing it under direct presidential control, the Union Home Minister said, “No final decision” has been taken and that “decision will only be made after consultation with all stakeholders,” and the ministry does not plan to present the bill on the issue in the upcoming winter session of the Parliament.
“A proposal to ease lawmaking for the Union Territory of Chandigarh is under the central government’s consideration. No final decision has been made. This proposal does not contain anything about Chandigarh’s administration or its traditional ties with Punjab or Haryana. Any decision will be taken only after consulting all stakeholders and with Chandigarh’s interests in mind. The Centre does not plan to bring any bill in this regard in the upcoming Winter Session of Parliament,” the Home Ministry said on X.
A Parliament bulletin earlier said that the center plans to table the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill 2025 in the upcoming winter session, which gives the right to the president to directly make regulations. The yet-to-be-made move triggered political uproars.
“Our villages were destroyed to build Chandigarh, and only Punjab has the right over it. We will not give up and take necessary steps,” AAP leader and Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann said.
“Chandigarh belongs to Punjab, and any attempt to snatch it away will have serious repercussions,” said Punjab Congress chief Amarinder Singh Raja.
Akali Dal president and former Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal denounced the proposed legislation as “anti-Punjab,” calling it a direct assault on the federal structure. He asserted that Punjab’s claim over Chandigarh is “non-negotiable” and vowed to challenge the move on every front.
Punjab BJP chief Sunil Jakhar also reiterated that Chandigarh “remains an integral part of Punjab,” adding that he would raise the matter with the Centre. Emphasizing his personal stake as a Punjabi, Jakhar said the state BJP would firmly uphold Punjab’s interests—whether on the Chandigarh issue or the question of river waters.
