Centre’s Article 240 Plan for Chandigarh Sparks Political Furor

Centre’s Article 240 Plan for Chandigarh Sparks Political Furor

NEW DELHI — The Central government's proposal to invoke Article 240 of the Constitution for enhanced administrative control over Chandigarh has ignited a fierce political storm, drawing sharp rebukes from Punjab and Haryana, the two states locked in a decades-long territorial tussle over the union territory. Union Home Minister Amit Shah's announcement on Saturday, outlining a draft regulation to centralize urban planning, land allocation, and municipal governance under direct President's rule, has been decried as a "constitutional coup" by Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and Haryana CM Nayab Singh Saini, who fear it undermines federalism and tilts the scales in favor of the BJP-led Centre. The plan, aimed at resolving Chandigarh's perennial infrastructure bottlenecks amid rapid urbanization, promises Rs 5,000 crore in federal funding for smart city upgrades but has been slammed as a ploy to dilute state influences in the strategically vital UT, home to 1.2 million residents and a shared capital for Punjab and Haryana since 1966.

Shah, speaking at a high-profile urban development conclave in New Delhi, framed the invocation of Article 240—empowering the President to make regulations for certain union territories like Chandigarh—as "a pragmatic step to fast-track development in a city choking under dual-state pulls." The draft, circulated to stakeholders on November 20, proposes a Chandigarh Development Authority (CDA) overhaul with Centre-appointed members holding veto powers on zoning and procurement, ostensibly to curb corruption and expedite projects like the Rs 1,200 crore metro extension. "Chandigarh is India's showpiece UT—time to unshackle it from partisan paralysis," Shah asserted, nodding to the city's role as a Punjab-Haryana flashpoint since the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and 2011 statehood demands.

The furor erupted within hours, with Mann accusing the Centre of "federal federalism's funeral" via X, vowing a Punjab Assembly resolution against the move. Saini, from the BJP, struck a bipartisan note, terming it "a Haryana betrayal" and demanding tripartite talks. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Indian National Congress (INC) have mobilized, with AAP's Raghav Chadha calling for Supreme Court intervention under Article 131. As protests brew in Chandigarh's Sector 17 and legal eagles sharpen petitions, the plan exposes fault lines in Centre-state relations, where Chandigarh's 114 sq km—once a Le Corbusier dream—now symbolizes simmering subcontinental schisms. With the draft open for comments till December 5, the coming weeks could redefine UT governance, potentially setting precedents for Delhi and Puducherry.

This latest flare-up revives the ghost of the 2021 delimitation row, where Punjab and Haryana clashed over Chandigarh's parliamentary seats, and underscores the BJP's tightrope walk in a region pivotal for 2029 polls. As Mann rallies farmers and Saini courts urban voters, the Article 240 invocation—last used for Chandigarh in 2020 during COVID—threatens to fracture the NDA's Punjab-Haryana equilibrium, turning a planning proposal into a political powder keg.

Historical Hauntings: Chandigarh's Contested Capital Conundrum

Chandigarh's saga is a subcontinental soap opera, scripted by Partition's partitions and etched in constitutional conundrums. Conceived in 1950 as Punjab's post-Partition capital by Jawaharlal Nehru—blueprinted by Swiss architect Le Corbusier as a "city beautiful" of 30 sectors—the UT was carved from erstwhile Punjab in 1966 under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, becoming a shared capital with Haryana amid linguistic state bifurcations. Article 240(1), empowering presidential regulations for "peace and good government" in UTs like Chandigarh (alongside Andaman & Nicobar, Lakshadweep, etc.), was invoked sporadically: 1984's Operation Blue Star aftermath saw extended President's rule, while 2020's pandemic prompted emergency ordinances.

The current plan, detailed in a 45-page Home Ministry draft leaked on November 21, seeks to "operationalize Article 240 for sustainable urbanism," proposing a revamped CDA with 60% Centre-nominated members, overriding state vetoes on land use and budgets. It allocates Rs 5,000 crore for 2026-30, funding metro Phase II (Rs 1,200 crore), green corridors (Rs 800 crore), and slum rehabilitation (Rs 1,000 crore). Shah justified: "Dual control has delayed development—Chandigarh's per capita income lags at Rs 2.5 lakh vs. Delhi's Rs 4.7 lakh; time for unified action."

Historical hauntings haunt: the 1985 Rajiv-Longowal Accord promised Chandigarh to Punjab post-Haryana's capital, a pledge unfulfilled. 2019's farmer protests saw Mann (then AAP MP) blockade Sector 17, demanding transfer; Saini's 2024 Haryana Assembly vow to "reclaim" it fueled furor. The 2021 delimitation draft—allocating one MP seat to Haryana—sparked Mann's Supreme Court suit, settled in 2023 with status quo. Now, Article 240's shadow revives recriminations: Punjab's 60% vote-share in Chandigarh (per 2024 Lok Sabha) views it as "ancestral," Haryana's 25% as "equitable."

Legal luminaries like Indira Jaising decry "federal overreach," arguing Article 240(2)'s "expediency" clause requires parliamentary nod. The draft, per Home Ministry sources, bypasses via "emergency" proviso, echoing 2020's ordinance. As opposition MPs table no-confidence motions, the hauntings harden into headlines.

Political Powder Keg: Punjab and Haryana's High-Decibel Duel

The announcement detonated a duet of discord, with Mann and Saini—former allies in 2024's anti-Centre chorus—now at daggers drawn. Mann, 51 and AAP's firebrand architect, stormed Chandigarh's Raj Bhavan on November 23, leading a 5,000-strong "Save Chandigarh" rally: "This is Punjab's birthright—Modi's Article 240 is Article of Theft!" His X thread, viewed 2 million times, tagged #ChandigarhHamaraHak, vowing a Punjab-Haryana joint front if Centre persists. AAP's Arvind Kejriwal, from Delhi, amplified: "Federalism's funeral—AAP stands with states."

Saini, 55 and BJP's Haryana hardliner, flipped the script: "Chandigarh's our due—Punjab's monopoly ends today. Article 240 is justice, not jingoism." His November 24 Kurukshetra rally drew 3,000 Jat farmers, demanding the draft's "Haryana quota" in CDA (40% seats). The BJP's Punjab unit, under Sunil Jakhar, walked a wire: "Support development, oppose dominance." INC's Rahul Gandhi, in Amritsar: "Centre's Chandigarh grab is constitutional crime—unite against it."

The keg crackles cross-party: SAD's Sukhbir Singh Badal backs Mann, while INLD's Abhay Chautala aligns with Saini. Delhi CM Atishi: "If Chandigarh falls, Delhi next—AAP alerts all UTs." Furor forecasts filibusters: Punjab Vidhan Sabha's November 25 session eyes a resolution; Haryana's follows December 1. As protests proliferate—Chandigarh's Rock Garden ringed by 1,000— the duel duels democracy's deck.

Article 240's Arsenal: Legal Levers and Loopholes

Article 240, tucked in Part VIII of the Constitution, arms the President with "regulation-making" powers for UTs "when Parliament cannot meet," a colonial carryover from 1950 adapted for "expedient governance." For Chandigarh—declared UT via 1966 Act—it's invoked 12 times since Independence: 1970's municipal revamp, 1984's emergency rule post-Blue Star, 2020's COVID curbs. The draft, per legal eagle Karan Thapar, exploits 240(2)'s "peace and good government" clause, bypassing Article 239AA's Delhi-like safeguards absent for Chandigarh.

Loopholes loom: no sunset for regulations, unlike ordinances' six-month cap. Jaising's petition preview: "240's discretionary—judicial review mandatory." Precedents: 2019's SC verdict in NCT Delhi v. Union curbed Centre's overreach; Chandigarh could cite. Home Ministry's hedge: "Consultative, not coercive—draft open till Dec 5." As lawyers litigate, levers leverage legacy.

Chandigarh's Conundrum: Urban Utopia or Administrative Anomaly?

Le Corbusier's 1950 blueprint—grid of 60 sectors, green belts galore—envisioned Chandigarh as "modern India's monument," but dual-state dominion diluted the dream. Today, 1.2 million residents grapple with 40% slum sprawl, traffic tangles (Rs 500 crore annual loss), and water woes (60% deficit). The draft's Rs 5,000 crore panacea: metro extension to Mohali-Panchkula (Rs 1,200 crore), 10,000 affordable homes (Rs 1,500 crore), and AI traffic nets (Rs 800 crore).

Utopia's underbelly: Punjab's 60% land claim (per 1985 Accord) vs. Haryana's 40% quota; 2024's farmer influx swelled shanties. Anomaly amplifies: UT status denies statehood, CDA's 50-50 split breeds buck-passing. Draft's veto tilt—Centre 60%, Punjab-Haryana 20% each—irks: Mann: "Punjab's purse, Centre's power." Saini: "Haryana's homes, Haryana's say." Residents' rift: Sector 17 traders favor funds, Rock Garden activists fear "gentrification genocide."

Conundrum crystallizes: utopia unrealized, anomaly acute—Article 240 as scalpel or sledgehammer?

Stakeholder Standoff: Unions, Industry, and Urbanites Weigh In

Standoff spans spectra: Punjab's BKU farmers blockade NH-44, demanding "Chandigarh clause" in MSP; Haryana's khaps rally for "50-50 land." Unions: Punjab's CITU's Harbhajan Singh: "Centre's control crushes state rights." Industry: CII Punjab's DS Chima: "Welcome infra—wary of veto veto."

Urbanites splinter: Chandigarh Social Welfare Forum's 5,000-signature petition backs "unified urbanism"; AAP's youth wing protests "fascist federalism." Academia: Panjab University's Prof. Ronki Ram: "240's a Trojan horse for BJP's UT takeover." As standoff simmers, stakeholders stake claims.

Legal Labyrinth: Courts, Clauses, and Constitutional Crossroads

Labyrinth leads to litigation: Mann's November 25 SC SLP under Article 131 (state-Centre suits); Saini's Haryana HC writ for "equitable stake." Clauses clash: 240 vs. 246 (state list encroach); 1966 Act's "shared capital" sanctity. Crossroads: SC's 2023 Delhi verdict curbed executive excess; Chandigarh could catalyze.

Ministry's maneuver: "Ordinance if obstructed"—per sources. Labyrinth lengthens: November 28 hearing looms.

Furor's Fallout: Electoral Echoes and Economic Equations

Fallout forecasts fractures: 2027 Punjab-Haryana polls, BJP's 40% Chandigarh vote at risk. AAP's Mann eyes "federal federalism" plank; BJP's Saini spins "development dividend." Economic equations: Rs 5,000 crore catalyst or capex cap? NITI's 2026 report: "UT autonomy adds 1.5% growth."

Echoes extend: Delhi's Atishi: "Article 240 blueprint for capital clampdown." Furor as fulcrum: politics pivots, economy equilibrates.

Resolution's Road: Dialogue, Drafts, and Dawn of Decision

Road to resolution: December 5 deadline for comments, tripartite table November 28. Dialogue's dawn: Mann-Saini meet in Chandigarh November 26? Dawn of decision: Ordinance or Ordinance? As furor ferments, resolution ripens—Chandigarh's crossroads, Constitution's compass.