Move to amend Art 240 blow to federalism: Cong

"...the Parliament Bulletin for the forthcoming Winter Session had listed for introduction of a Constitution Amendment Bill to enable the appointment of a full-time L-G for Chandigarh. This was immediately and aggressively opposed by the INC and other parties in Punjab, whose Governor is also the Administrator of Chandigarh. The Union Home Ministry now says that it has no intention to introduce the Bill in the winter session. It is yet another example of the Modi government's FAST approach to governance - First Announce, Second Think," said Congress leader Jairam Ramesh.

In a detailed statement posted on X, Congress MP Randeep Singh Surjewala questioned “why the Modi government and the BJP were acting inimically towards the states of Haryana and Punjab”, asserting that a “clear pattern” of moves shows repeated attempts to unsettle long-standing arrangements between the two states.

He alleged that the Centre had earlier engineered a confrontation by “undermining the rights of Haryana on the Bhakra Dam”, claiming that allowing the Punjab Police to take control of the dam gates had disrupted the water-sharing mechanism maintained since the Nehru era.

He added that insufficient release of water to Haryana during the last Kharif season created surplus storage, which later contributed to severe flooding in Punjab. Surjewala also criticised the AAP government in Punjab for becoming a “willing tool” in the episode.

The Congress leader also referred to the recent controversy over Panjab University, saying the Centre had “without provocation” attempted to “annihilate” its democratic structure by issuing an order under the Punjab Reorganisation Act that ignored the mandate of the Panjab University Act, 1947. He said the government was ultimately forced to step back.

Calling the proposed Amendment to Article 240 the “latest instance” in this series, he questioned the rationale behind the move, insisting there was “no provocation” or reason to alter the existing constitutional balance. According to him, the only explanation was an “unbridled desire to take absolute control of Chandigarh”, disregarding the sentiments and equitable rights of both states.

Earlier in the day, Surjewala had urged the Centre to withdraw the measure, warning that such steps would disturb the “equilibrium” of Chandigarh, which he described as the shared legacy of the two states.

Addressing the BJP leadership in Haryana and Punjab, he asked them to “stand up for the rights and unwavering spirit” of both regions. He also cautioned political groups in Punjab against what he termed the “false bogey” of exclusive claims over Chandigarh or Panjab University, arguing that such positions undermine “Punjabiyat” and ignore the shared history of Haryana and Punjab prior to November 1, 1966.

Calling for maturity and restraint, Surjewala said both states “have a shared heritage” and must not allow “Machiavellian politics” to turn them into adversaries. He urged leaders to protect Chandigarh and common institutions from becoming casualties of political contestation.