The central government's plan to introduce a bill in the upcoming winter session of Parliament that could significantly alter the administrative structure of Chandigarh has triggered a political storm, drawing strong opposition from parties in Punjab. The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025, seeks to bring the Union Territory of Chandigarh under Article 240 of the Constitution, a move that would empower the President to frame regulations for the UT, potentially paving the way for the appointment of a Lieutenant Governor.

Currently, the Governor of Punjab serves as the Administrator of Chandigarh, a practice that began in 1984. The proposed amendment is viewed by many in Punjab as an attempt to weaken the state's historical claim over Chandigarh, which serves as the joint capital of both Punjab and Haryana.

The apprehension surrounding the bill stems from the belief that it could lead to Chandigarh being administered by an independent administrator or Lieutenant Governor, similar to other Union Territories without legislatures, such as Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, and Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. This would mark a significant departure from the existing arrangement and potentially dilute Punjab's influence over the city.

Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann has voiced strong opposition to the bill, stating that it goes against the interests of the state and that his government will not allow any "conspiracy" to "snatch" Chandigarh from Punjab. He emphasized that Chandigarh was built on land that once belonged to Punjab's villages and that the state will take all necessary steps to protect its rights.

Echoing similar sentiments, various political parties in Punjab, including the Congress and the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), have condemned the proposed amendment, describing it as an attack on the state's rights and a violation of federal principles. They argue that the bill undermines Punjab's historical, constitutional, and emotional claim over its capital.

Rajya Sabha MP Vikramjit Singh Sahney has urged all MPs from Punjab to unite and oppose the bill, emphasizing the historical significance of Punjab's claim to Chandigarh. He pointed out that Chandigarh became Punjab's capital after the Partition when Lahore went to Pakistan and that the Centre had made promises to transfer Chandigarh to Punjab under multiple accords.

The controversy surrounding the bill follows closely on the heels of the central government's withdrawal of a notification regarding Panjab University's governance structure, further fueling tensions between Punjab and the Centre. The move to bring Chandigarh under Article 240 has been interpreted by some as part of a larger pattern of eroding Punjab's rights, including issues related to river waters and Panjab University.

As the winter session of Parliament approaches, the proposed bill has set the stage for a heated debate with significant political, historical, and constitutional implications. The outcome of this debate could potentially reshape Punjab's relationship with Chandigarh and its long-cherished capital.