Constitutional amendment bill to end Punjab Governor’s four-decade role as UT administrator
New Delhi, November 23, 2025 — The Central government is set to introduce the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025, during the Winter Session of Parliament beginning December 1, a move that could fundamentally alter Chandigarh’s administrative structure and has triggered fierce opposition across Punjab’s political spectrum.
The proposed amendment seeks to bring the Union Territory of Chandigarh under the ambit of Article 240 of the Constitution, paving the way for an independent administrator—potentially at the Lieutenant Governor level—to replace the current arrangement where Punjab’s Governor serves as Chandigarh’s administrator.
What Changes
Under the existing framework established in 1984, the Governor of Punjab has simultaneously held the position of Administrator of Chandigarh. The proposed amendment would align Chandigarh with other Union Territories without legislatures, such as Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.
Article 240, which the amendment seeks to apply to Chandigarh, empowers the President to directly enact regulations for such territories, fundamentally changing the city’s governance structure.
Political Firestorm
The announcement has united Punjab’s otherwise fractious political landscape in opposition. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann of the Aam Aadmi Party issued a strongly worded statement rejecting the proposal.
“This amendment is against the interests of Punjab. We will not allow the conspiracy being hatched against Punjab to succeed,” Mann declared. “Chandigarh, built on Punjab’s soil, is our sole right. We will not let our rights go away.”
Punjab Congress State President Amarinder Singh Raja Warring appealed directly to Union Home Minister Amit Shah to clarify the Centre’s intentions, warning that “any attempt to snatch it will have serious consequences.”
Shiromani Akali Dal President Sukhbir Singh Badal characterized the move as a betrayal, stating it represents “an attempt to permanently remove Chandigarh from Punjab’s administrative and political control” and violates the spirit of federalism.
Historical Context
The controversy is rooted in decades of unfulfilled promises. When Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966 under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, Chandigarh—then Punjab’s capital—was designated as the joint capital of both states and given temporary Union Territory status.
The 1985 Rajiv-Longowal Accord, approved by Parliament, set January 26, 1986, as the deadline for transferring Chandigarh to Punjab. Despite parliamentary approval, the accord was never implemented, leaving the city’s status in constitutional limbo.
From the city’s inception as Punjab’s capital in 1952 until 1966, Chandigarh residents enjoyed full representation in the state assembly. Between 1966 and 1984, a Chief Commissioner administered the UT directly under Central government supervision. The current system, with Punjab’s Governor serving as Administrator with a Chief Commissioner redesignated as Advisor, has been in place since June 1, 1984.
Administrative Implications
Currently, Chandigarh’s bureaucracy maintains a 60:40 ratio of deputation officers from Punjab and Haryana respectively. Punjab’s political leaders fear that an independent administrator could alter this balance and effectively end Punjab’s constitutional connection to the city.
Opposition leaders across party lines suggest the amendment could facilitate Chandigarh’s eventual transfer to Haryana, though the Centre has not explicitly stated this as an objective.
Constitutional Procedure
As a constitutional amendment, the bill will require approval by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament. Given the political sensitivity and opposition from Punjab’s MPs across party lines, the bill’s passage could face significant challenges.
The Winter Session of Parliament, where the bill is scheduled for introduction, begins December 1, setting the stage for what promises to be a contentious debate over federalism, historical commitments, and the governance of India’s first planned city.
With inputs from government sources and political leaders
Leave a Reply