The Centre circulated a detailed note to Punjab BJP leaders before aborting the proposed Chandigarh Bill, which would have allowed it to directly govern the Union Territory. The note explained the rationale behind the move and its benefits, but party leaders indicated they could not convince the public due to “sentimental attachment” with Chandigarh and lingering distrust following the controversial 2020-21 farm laws.
Background of the Chandigarh Bill
The proposed Bill sought to bring Chandigarh under Article 240 of the Constitution, giving the President the power to enact laws for the UT’s specific needs without parliamentary approval for minor changes. Currently, Parliament has authority over Chandigarh, but laws tailored to the city’s unique requirements have been limited.
Sources said the note explained that although Chandigarh would remain the shared capital of Punjab and Haryana, the move would allow more efficient governance, legal flexibility, and administrative adaptability. The note emphasized that there would be no change in constitutional status, administrative structures, law enforcement, or local services.
Punjab BJP Response
Punjab BJP leaders, however, warned that the rationale behind the decision would be lost on the Punjabi-speaking population, who may see it as unnecessary meddling by the Centre. The majority view in Punjab has traditionally favored transferring Chandigarh to the state, and there were concerns that the move could trigger law-and-order issues, especially with Assembly elections just over a year away.
A senior BJP source stated, “The anger over previous central decisions, such as trimming the Panjab University Senate and Syndicate, has not subsided. People perceive repeated interventions as high-handedness, and this proposal would worsen distrust.”
Legal Rationale Explained in the Note
The circulated note highlighted:
- Chandigarh has historically had to extend laws passed by other states.
- Unlike other Union Territories, Chandigarh cannot enact laws for its local needs without Parliament.
- Including Chandigarh under Article 240 would bring it in line with other UTs, allowing modernized legal provisions and administrative efficiency.
- Presidential modifications under the Punjab Reorganisation Act could address local provisions more effectively.
Despite these points, party leaders felt that public perception would overshadow administrative benefits, leading the Centre to roll back the proposal temporarily.