City not part of Haryana, Punjab since 1966, High Court told

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 23

Two months after the Punjab and Haryana High Court asked the states of Punjab and Haryana to come out with some document to show that Chandigarh was their joint capital, the Bench was today told that the city after 1966 was not a part of the two states. It was a union territory.

As the case came up for resumed hearing before the Bench of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain and Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain said Chandigarh was a part of Punjab initially but after 1966, it was accorded the status of UT.

Appearing before the Bench, senior standing counsel for Chandigarh Pankaj Jain reiterated that Chandigarh was a UT and not a part of either of the two states. Jain also told the Bench that Chandigarh did not have its own judicial cadre and judicial officers from both Punjab and Haryana were posted here.

The query by the Bench on Chandigarh’s status came during the hearing of a petition filed by an advocate seeking reservation in the two states by the virtue of him being a city resident. As the case came up for hearing before the Bench in July, the issue of Chandigarh being the capital of the two states cropped up as a person  declared SC candidate in one state is not necessarily considered the same in the other state. The case, as such, was being dubbed as “unique” as the petitioner was seeking reservation in both the states for recruitment in the superior judiciary on the basis of him being an SC candidate in Chandigarh, which was the capital of the two states.

The Bench initially took up the matter in the morning session after treating it as urgent. 

After hearing the case for about an hour, the Bench called the advocates-general of both the states. They were asked to come out with any notification, letter, or any other document that showed Chandigarh as their capital. 

The developments took place on petition filed by Phool Singh against the Punjab and Haryana High Court and other respondents through senior counsel Rajiv Atma Ram and Arjun Partap Atma Ram. The High Court was represented in the matter by senior counsel Manisha Gandhi and Swati Batra.