No plan to divest Punjab governor of Chandigarh’s charge: MHA

The home ministry also denied Shiromani Akali Dal president Sukhbir Singh Badal’s claim that he raised the issue with Union home minister Amit Shah and termed the former’s apprehension with regard to the Chandigarh administrator “unfounded”

The Union home ministry on Friday made it clear that there is no proposal under its consideration to divest the Punjab governor of responsibility as the administrator of Chandigarh.

The Union home ministry on Friday made it clear that there is no proposal under its consideration to divest the Punjab governor of responsibility as the administrator of Chandigarh.

The home ministry also denied Shiromani Akali Dal president Sukhbir Singh Badal’s claim that he raised the issue with Union home minister Amit Shah and termed the former’s apprehension with regard to the Chandigarh administrator “unfounded”.

In a series of tweets on Thursday, Sukhbir said he had requested Shah to review the Union government’s decision to appoint a full-fledged administrator for Chandigarh by divesting the Punjab governor of the charge, while calling it another attempt to “dilute” the state’s claim to its capital city. Sukhbir had met Shah on Wednesday evening.

“It is clarified that the Union government has not taken any decision of divesting the Punjab governor of this responsibility of Chandigarh administrator; and, neither is any such proposal under contemplation. It is also clarified that Sukhbir Singh Badal has not raised this issue with the Union home minister,” a home ministry spokesperson said.

With VP Singh Badnore set to complete his five-year tenure on the gubernatorial post later this month, speculation was rife that the Centre could divest the next Punjab governor of the charge of UT administrator and appoint a an exclusive administrator for Chandigarh. Sukhbir’s claims in the recent days had further fuelled the debate.

A brief history

From 1952 to 1966 (the year Haryana was carved out of Punjab), Chandigarh was the capital of Punjab. Citizens of the city were represented in the state’s legislative assembly and a chief commissioner headed the local administration.

When Punjab was divided, both Punjab and Haryana claimed the new city for its capital. Pending resolution of the issue, the Union government made Chandigarh a Union Territory with its administration functioning directly under the Centre. The practice of appointing an administrator of the UT designated as chief commissioner continued till May 31, 1984.

At the time of insurgency in Punjab, the Union government decided to transfer the administrator’s role to the Punjab governor. On June 1, 1984, the Punjab governor took over the direct administration of the UT as the administrator, and the chief commissioner was redesignated as the adviser to the administrator.

Both the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party, from time to time, have demanded greater democratic participation in the city’s governance rather than officialdom, without taking a clear stand on whether the UT should have an exclusive administrator or the Punjab governor should continue performing that role.

In recent days, former Congress MP Pawan Bansal has floated the idea of a metropolitan council, while former BJP MP Satya Pal Jain advocated a system where the major role in decision making is that of citizens rather than bureaucrats.