The 131st Constitutional Amendment: A Risky Gamble for Chandigarh’s Stability

What Does Constitution 131st Amendment Bill?: The 131st Constitutional Amendment, which proposes to alter the administrative structure of Chandigarh, is being hailed by some as a progressive step toward democratic empowerment. However, a closer examination reveals that this Amendment is not just a reform—it is a risky gamble that could destabilize one of India’s most efficiently administered cities. Chandigarh, a Union Territory and the shared capital of Punjab and Haryana, has thrived under a centralized administrative model. The proposed changes, while well-intentioned, threaten to disrupt this stability, introduce political interference, and create administrative chaos where there was once order.

At a time when India needs models of efficient urban governance, the Amendment risks replacing a system that works with one that is untested and fraught with potential pitfalls. Rather than empowering Chandigarh, it could end up fragmenting its administration, complicating its relationship with neighboring states, and undermining the very qualities that have made it a benchmark for urban planning and governance.

Chandigarh’s Administrative Success: Why Fix What Isn’t Broken?

Chandigarh is not just another Indian city—it is a symbol of administrative efficiency and urban excellence. Designed by Le Corbusier as a modernist masterpiece, the city has flourished under a centralized governance model that has ensured stability, accountability, and high standards of public service. Unlike many Indian cities plagued by political interference and bureaucratic red tape, Chandigarh has maintained its reputation for cleanliness, order, and effective administration. This success is largely due to its status as a Union Territory, where decisions are made by appointed administrators rather than elected politicians. [Also Know - Constitutional Amendment Crossroads: The Debate Over India’s Preamble]

Why 131st Constitutional Amendment?

The 131st Amendment seeks to dismantle this model by introducing an elected legislative assembly for Chandigarh. While democratic representation is a noble ideal, it is not without its risks. The history of Indian politics is replete with examples of how local governance, when politicized, can lead to corruption, inefficiency, and short-term populism at the expense of long-term planning. Chandigarh’s current system, though imperfect, has shielded it from these pitfalls. Why, then, should we risk destabilizing a city that has consistently delivered on governance?

Moreover, Chandigarh’s unique status as a shared capital for Punjab and Haryana adds another layer of complexity. The Amendment’s proposal to clarify jurisdiction is vague and could lead to further disputes between the two states, neither of which is likely to willingly cede control over the city’s resources. The potential for conflict is high, and the Amendment does little to address how these disputes will be resolved.

The Illusion of Empowerment: Will Local Politics Serve Chandigarh’s Interests?

Proponents of the Amendment argue that it will empower Chandigarh’s residents by giving them a voice in their city’s governance. However, this argument overlooks a critical question: Will local politics truly serve the best interests of Chandigarh, or will it introduce the same problems that plague other Indian cities?

The reality is that local elections in India are often dominated by narrow political agendas, caste-based politics, and short-term populism. Chandigarh, which has so far been insulated from these pressures, could find itself embroiled in the same cycles of political instability that have hindered progress in other urban centers. The city’s residents may gain the right to vote, but they may also lose the efficiency and stability that have defined Chandigarh for decades.

There is also the question of whether Chandigarh’s residents actually want this change. While some sections of the population may support the idea of greater autonomy, others—particularly those who have benefited from the city’s stable administration—may view the Amendment with skepticism. The Central Government has not conducted a comprehensive public consultation to gauge the true sentiment on the ground. Without this, the Amendment risks being an imposed reform rather than a demand-driven one.

Federalism or Fragmentation? The Risks of Setting a Precedent

The 131st Amendment is being framed as a step toward strengthening federalism. However, it could just as easily lead to fragmentation. Chandigarh’s status as a Union Territory has allowed it to function as a neutral administrative space, free from the political tensions that often arise between states. By introducing an elected government, the Amendment could turn Chandigarh into another battleground for state politics, particularly between Punjab and Haryana, both of which have competing claims over the city.

This is not just a theoretical concern. The history of shared capitals—such as Hyderabad before the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana—shows how political tensions can escalate when administrative control is contested. Chandigarh could find itself caught in a similar quagmire, with its governance paralyzed by disputes between the Central Government, the new local administration, and the governments of Punjab and Haryana.

Furthermore, the Amendment sets a dangerous precedent for other Union Territories. If Chandigarh is granted greater autonomy, demands for similar reforms could arise in places like Delhi, Puducherry, and others. While this may seem like a positive development, it could lead to a patchwork of governance models across the country, complicating the already delicate balance of power between the Center and the states.

Administrative Chaos: The Transition No One Is Prepared For

One of the most glaring flaws in the 131st Amendment is its lack of a clear implementation plan. The transition from a bureaucrat-led administration to an elected government is not a simple switch—it requires extensive legal, institutional, and administrative preparation. The Amendment does not specify how this transition will take place, who will oversee it, or how potential conflicts will be resolved.

For instance, the devolution of powers related to land, police, and municipal functions is a complex process that cannot be rushed. Chandigarh’s current administrative framework is deeply integrated with the Central Government’s systems. Untangling these connections without disrupting the city’s functioning will be a monumental task, one that the Amendment does not adequately address.

There is also the risk of creating a power vacuum. If the transition is not managed carefully, Chandigarh could face a period of administrative paralysis, where neither the Central Government nor the new local administration is fully in control. This could lead to delays in decision-making, confusion over jurisdiction, and a breakdown in the delivery of public services—all of which would harm the city’s residents far more than the current system ever has.

Reform, Not Radical Overhaul

The concerns surrounding the 131st Amendment do not mean that Chandigarh’s governance cannot be improved. However, the solution lies in incremental reform rather than a radical overhaul. Instead of rushing to introduce an elected assembly, the Central Government should consider less disruptive measures to enhance local participation.

For example, the existing advisory committees that allow resident input could be strengthened and made more representative. The Municipal Corporation could be granted additional powers without fully politicizing the administration. Public consultations could be institutionalized to ensure that residents have a voice in key decisions, even within the current framework. [Also Know: Simultaneous Polls: A Debate on Feasibility and Constitutionality]

These steps would allow Chandigarh to evolve without risking the stability and efficiency that have made it a model city. They would also provide a more gradual and tested path toward greater autonomy, one that does not threaten to unravel the city’s administrative fabric.

Conclusion: A Reform That Demands Caution

The 131st Constitutional Amendment is being sold as a progressive reform, but its potential consequences demand caution. Chandigarh’s success as a Union Territory is not an accident—it is the result of a governance model that has prioritized efficiency over politics, stability over experimentation. The Amendment risks dismantling this model in the name of democratic representation, without guaranteeing that the benefits will outweigh the costs.

Before moving forward, the Central Government must address the Amendment’s glaring shortcomings: the lack of a clear transition plan, the potential for political interference, and the risk of administrative fragmentation. It must also engage in genuine public consultation to ensure that the reform reflects the will of Chandigarh’s residents, rather than being imposed from above.

If these concerns are not addressed, the 131st Amendment could do more harm than good, turning one of India’s most successful urban experiments into just another city struggling with the pitfalls of politicized governance. Chandigarh deserves better—it deserves reform that builds on its strengths, not one that gambles with its future.