The president of the state unit of the Aam Aadmi Party, Aman Arora, took pointed aim at the ruling central party, declaring: “The Centre and the BJP have developed a habit of disturbing Punjab. They tried it earlier with the three new farm laws, and Punjab responded very strongly. So, I would recommend that they do not play with fire again and again.” The statement places the latest constitutional initiative in a broader context of what the state leadership views as repeated attempts to undermine its autonomy.
Chandigarh’s status has long been contested. Originally carved out as a shared capital for Punjab and Haryana, the city is a Union Territory administered under the Governor of Punjab, who also serves as the UT’s Administrator. The proposed move to bring it under Article 240 — which grants the President power to make regulations for certain Union Territories — is seen by Punjab’s government as a step toward erasing its stake in the city.
Political figures across Punjab’s spectrum have registered alarm. The state’s Chief Minister, Bhagwant Mann, described the amendment as constituting a “grave injustice” and accused the central leadership of seeking to “snatch” Chandigarh from Punjab. He reaffirmed that the city “was, is and will always remain” part of the state. The opposition, including the Shiromani Akali Dal and the Indian National Congress, echoed the sentiment, framing the bill as a betrayal of historical commitments and an assault on the state’s constitutional rights.
Beyond the rhetoric, the proposed legislative change holds practical significance. By bringing Chandigarh under Article 240, the Centre could install dedicated governing structures akin to other Union Territories, reducing Punjab’s influence in administrative decisions. Critics view this as part of a broader pattern of centralising power, wherein states perceive their rights and identities as being challenged. Arora’s invocation of the earlier farm law saga underscores the view among Punjab’s leadership that policy moves from the Centre often carry deeper implications for the state’s autonomy.
Within this environment of heightened sensitivity, Arora’s reference to the farm laws signals that Punjab’s political leadership sees a continuity between past policy confrontations and the current constitutional proposal. He framed the Centre’s move not merely as administrative reform but as a strategic affront to the state’s standing. By warning of “playing with fire”, he underlined the risks of stirring widespread mobilisation and political backlash.
Analysts note that the timing of the amendment—announced for introduction in Parliament’s upcoming winter session—further amplifies tensions. Although a bulletin of the Lower and Upper Houses indicated the Bill’s introduction, the Home Ministry later stated no such Bill would be raised in that session, effectively signalling a retreat amid protest. This sequence suggests the federal government may be recalibrating amid push-back but has yet to clarify its long-term intentions. From Punjab’s vantage, however, the episode has already strengthened calls for vigilance and resistance against what is viewed as constitutional erosion.