According to the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) bulletin dated November 21, 2025, the Central Government listed a Constitution Amendment Bill empowering the President to make regulations for the Union Territory (UT) of Chandigarh and to legislate directly, among the ten provisional new Bills proposed for introduction and passage during the Winter Session of Parliament commencing on December 1, 2025. The proposed Bill, titled “The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025”, seeks, inter alia, “To include the Union Territory of Chandigarh in Article 240 of the Constitution of India, in alignment with other Union Territories without legislatures – namely, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, and Puducherry (when its Legislative Assembly is dissolved or suspended).”
However, following widespread backlash from various quarters in Punjab, the Central Government reversed its earlier position on November 23, 2025. In an official statement, the Ministry of Home Affairs clarified that the Government has ‘no intention’ of introducing the Bill in the forthcoming Winter Session of Parliament. The Ministry further explained that the objective of the proposed legislation was merely to ‘simplify the Central Government’s law-making process’ for the UT of Chandigarh, noting that the Bill remains ‘under consideration’ and that the government has ‘no intention’ of altering Chandigarh’s administrative structure.
Significantly, in August 2016, the Central Government had attempted to appoint former IAS officer K.J. Alphons as an independent Administrator of the UT of Chandigarh. The move was, however, withdrawn following strong opposition from the then Punjab Chief Minister, Parkash Singh Badal, as well as other political parties.
If enacted, the proposed Bill would enable the Central Government to appoint a Lieutenant Governor to administer Chandigarh. Chandigarh – designated as the shared capital of Punjab and Haryana following the reorganisation of Punjab on November 1, 1966 – was initially administered by an independent Chief Secretary. However, from June 1, 1984, during the militancy period, it came under the administration of the Punjab Governor, with the Chief Secretary’s role redefined as Adviser to the Administrator.
The backlash in Punjab was swift and broadly unanimous, cutting across party lines in a rare display of political consensus. Chief Minister (CM) Bhagwant Mann condemned the Bill as a ‘draconian move,’ alleging a Central Government ‘conspiracy to snatch’ the city amid long-pending transfer commitments. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) termed the proposal ‘daylight robbery,’ the Congress described it as a ‘deliberate attempt to dilute Punjab’s historical claim,’ and the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) labelled it a ‘betrayal’ of assurances made in the 1980s, vowing to oppose it through legal and parliamentary means. Several other local leaders accused the Central Government of exhibiting an ‘anti-Punjab syndrome’ and undermining Punjab’s rightful claims.
Many in Punjab view this controversy as part of a recurring pattern in which the Centre is perceived to be politically and administratively sidelining the state. Its timing, coinciding with the recent Punjab University crisis – which had already heightened political and social tensions – further reinforced perceptions of discrimination and neglect. On October 28, 2025, the Centre dissolved the 59-year-old Panjab University Senate, replacing the 91-member elected and nominated body with a 31-member council dominated by ex officio and nominated members. This move triggered one of the largest protests on the campus under the banner of the Panjab University Bachao Morcha, as critics viewed it as an assault on Punjab’s academic and democratic autonomy and an indirect attempt to dilute Punjab’s stake in Chandigarh-based institutions. Although the Centre eventually withdrew the changes after sustained demonstrations, the episode deepened prevailing feelings of alienation and mistrust toward the Centre.
Similarly, in May 2025, as protests intensified over water sharing with Haryana – during which Chief Minister Mann and his supporters blocked the release of water from the Bhakra Dam – the Centre deployed central security forces at the site. Punjab strongly opposed the intervention, alleging that it was an attempt to wrest control of the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB), which has traditionally remained under the supervision of the Punjab Police.
This further intersected with lingering resentment over what many in Punjab viewed as discriminatory treatment in the allocation of flood-relief funds. While the state sought INR 20,000 crore in assistance, the Centre sanctioned INR 1,600 crore – which was released after considerable delay. The Punjab Assembly subsequently condemned what it described as the Centre’s ‘apathy’ and its failure to disburse even the token amount in a timely manner.
These policy decisions are widely framed as assaults on Punjab’s cultural and intellectual autonomy, undermining the federal structure, and as manifestations of long-standing structural weaknesses and deep-seated mistrust between Punjab and the Centre, as well as centralising tendencies increasingly exercised through gubernatorial interventions.
The perceived betrayal inherent in these recent central interventions, has created fertile ground for pro-Khalistan and separatist-leaning groups to amplify their narratives. These groups have long accused the Centre of disregarding Punjab’s political demands and cultural aspirations, and they readily exploit any development seen as marginalising the state. While mainstream political parties may use such episodes as anti-Centre flashpoints, separatist elements frame them as evidence of historical betrayal, state oppression, and cultural dispossession in order to cultivate ideological legitimacy. For these groups, prolonged uncertainty and disorder are strategic assets: the longer the crisis persists, the more effectively they can intensify Punjabi emotional and political grievances.
While such grievances may not immediately translate into violent radicalisation, they deepen alienation, erode trust in democratic institutions, and risk fostering stronger militant or separatist tendencies over time – particularly among the youth, who feel betrayed by the political system. This environment creates a crucible for radicalisation, where legitimate concerns can be appropriated by extremist groups.
Addressing this complex dynamic requires sustained dialogue and balanced governance that respects Punjab’s rights and identity while upholding the constitutional order and ensuring equitable development. Ignoring regional anxieties or advancing contentious policies without consultation risks further marginalisation, with potentially serious consequences for peace and security in Punjab and the broader Indian Union.
