Capital Conundrum: Threading The Needle Between Governance And History

In the arcane world of Indian parliamentary procedure, it is rare for a mere listing in a legislative bulletin to trigger uproar in a state. Yet, that is precisely what happened recently. The inclusion of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the tentative list for the Winter Session, aimed at bringing the Union Territory of Chandigarh under Article 240, set off a political firestorm in Punjab. The Ministry of Home Affairs was pushed into a swift retreat, clarifying that there was no intention to alter the administrative structure or the traditional link with the Punjab Governor.While the Bill may have been deferred, the issue it exposed remains paramount and urgent: the governance paralysis of Chandigarh. The city, conceived by Le Corbusier as a symbol of India's modern future, is currently trapped in a legal cage built in the past. The debate has largely been hijacked by the emotive politics of territory and identity, obscuring the administrative reality that Chandigarh needs a constitutional fix for its legislative paralysis.The Anatomy of ParalysisTo understand why the Centre proposed this amendment, one must look beyond the optics of federal power-play and into the mechanics of municipal governance. Unlike other Union Territories without legislatures (such as the Andaman & Nicobar Islands or Dadra & Nagar Haveli), Chandigarh does not fall under Article 240. Instead, its law-making is governed by a patchwork mechanism, primarily Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.This provision creates a unique disability. It enables the Central Govt. to merely 'extend' laws already in force in other states by way of a notification in the Official Gazette. It is a copy-paste governance model, admittedly allowing for some 'restrictions or modifications'. Let's take an example: if Chandigarh needs a law to regulate modern urban tenancy, it cannot draft one. It must wait for Punjab or Haryana (or another State) to pass such a law, which may then be extended with minor modifications. As the Supreme Court noted in Ramesh Birch v. Union of India, this power does not allow the executive to alter the 'essential legislative policy' of the borrowed act. The administration is essentially robbed of the ability to innovate.When Chandigarh cannot 'borrow' a state law, it must turn to Parliament. The statistics are damning: in the nearly 60 years since 1966, Parliament has enacted specific legislation for Chandigarh only twice. This neglect is hardly surprising given the arithmetic of power - Chandigarh holds just one seat in the Lok Sabha. In a house of over 500 representatives, other MPs have no motivation to prioritize Chandigarh's municipal grievances over national imperatives.The situation is equally grim when the city does borrow laws. Extending statutes from Punjab or Haryana is a fundamentally undemocratic practice, as neither state assembly includes a single elected member from Chandigarh. Thus, the city is governed either by a Parliament preoccupied with 'more' pressing issues, or by state laws imposed without representation and/or contextualised innovation.A glaring example is the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. The penalties for building violations under this Act were fixed over seven decades ago. Today, the fine for certain misuse of property is merely ₹500, less than the cost of a movie ticket in the city's multiplexes. The Administration has been trying to amend this for years, but the amendment languishes waiting for a parliamentary slot that never comes. Similarly, the Chandigarh Tenancy Act, drafted to replace an archaic 1949 law, has been stuck in the corridors of the MHA for over three years. While other UTs like Daman & Diu swiftly adopted the modern Model Tenancy Act via an Article 240 regulation, Chandigarh waits.The argument for bringing Chandigarh under Article 240 is, therefore, rooted in a desperate need for administrative efficiency. It would empower the President (effectively the Union Cabinet) to frame Regulations for the city that have the force of parliamentary law, circumventing the hurdle posed by the legislative calendar.The Punjabi ClaimPunjab's fury over the matter emanates out of the deep scars of history and the symbolism of sovereignty.For Punjab, Chandigarh is not just a territory, it is an unredeemed promise. The city was built to replace Lahore, lost to Partition. The Rajiv-Longowal Accord of 1985 promised Chandigarh's transfer to Punjab, a promise that remains unfulfilled. In this context, the current administrative setup, where the Governor of Punjab acts as the ex-officio Administrator of Chandigarh, is seen as the last remaining umbilical-cord connecting the state to its capital. It is a symbolic assurance that the Centre is merely a caretaker until the eventual transfer.The fear across the political spectrum in Punjab (from Akali Dal to the Congress and AAP) is that Article 240 is a Homeric Trojan horse. The concern is that this...

Capital Conundrum: Threading The Needle Between Governance And History

Saurabh Gupta

Tags