India, Dec. 7 -- The recently tabled Constitution 131st Amendment Bill 2025 proposes placing Chandigarh under Article 240 of the Indian Constitution and introducing a lieutenant governor for the Union Territory. The development has revived long standing debates about how the city should be governed and what kind of administrative spine best suits a place that was planned with unusual clarity. Chandigarh's design has always depended on intention rather than improvisation. Any shift in its governing structure naturally invites questions about how its identity will evolve. The most visible provision of the Bill is the introduction of a lieutenant governor in place of the current administrator who is the governor of Punjab. The deeper shift lies in bringing Chandigarh under Article 240 which empowers the President to issue regulations for certain UTs without the need for parliamentary legislation. On the surface this sounds like a procedural adjustment. In practice it brings Chandigarh closer to the governance style of territories like Puducherry or the Andaman and Nicobar Islands where central authority often acts with greater directness. Chandigarh is not a typical UT. It is also the shared capital of two states and a city that was conceived as an urban experiment. Its governance has always required a careful balance between federal oversight and local sensitivity. Administrative adjustments in such a setting are never only administrative. They influence how the built environment is interpreted and how decisions ripple into land use, lawmaking and daily civic life. When authority shifts even slightly, the effects tend to travel quietly before they surface. Chandigarh was not just planned on a drafting table. It was imagined as a living alternative to the disorder that often defines rapidly growing cities. Its sectors, open spaces and modest skyline rest on a philosophy of restraint. While the Constitution does not ask that governance mimic architecture, the city's rhythms have depended on a certain proportionality in decision making. Article 240 changes the relationship between local governance and central regulation. Supporters of the Bill highlight the potential for efficiency and consistency. Critics worry that such efficiency may overlook the nuance with which the city must be understood. Chandigarh responds quickly to policy decisions. It is small enough for effects to be visible and yet complex enough for those effects to be meaningful. A change in the mode of authority can alter how rules are written, how they are interpreted and how faithfully the original urban vision is respected. For most residents, everyday life may look the same. Roads will hold their calm geometry. The Rose Garden will continue to scent the air. Students will still spill out of cafes in Sector 17. Yet identity does not shift all at once. It shifts through the small ways in which laws are made, administered and remembered. A more centralised structure might quicken decisions, but it could also thin the delicate ties Chandigarh maintains with Punjab and Haryana. These ties are not ornamental. They guide how institutions coordinate, how administrative duties are shared and how the city negotiates its unique dual role. Even though the government has clarified that the matter is still under consideration, the act of tabling the Bill signals a rethinking of the city's long term governance. Chandigarh has never been a blank space waiting for instructions. It is a city drawn with intention and lived with care. Any constitutional revision that touches it must recognize that its strength lies not only in its layout but also in its culture of proportion. Rewrite its governance without sensitivity and the blueprint that has guided it for decades may begin to shift in quiet but lasting ways....