Chandigarh Congress Slams UT Administration for Furniture Market Demolition

The recent demolition of the Chandigarh furniture market has sparked political outrage and public concern. The Congress party has sharply criticised the UT Administration, calling the action unjust and abrupt. Eyewitnesses describe the chaotic scenes, while officials defend the decision, citing legal violations. With protests gaining momentum, the issue of removing furniture from the UT market has ignited a broader debate on urban planning, vendors’ rights, and government accountability in Chandigarh.

Key Points at a Glance

• The Chandigarh furniture market demolition took place on Monday in Industrial Area Phase II.
• Congress has launched a strong protest, accusing the UT Administration of cruelty and a lack of planning.
• Vendors claim they were not adequately notified and lost their livelihoods overnight.
• Officials defend the action as a legal move against illegal encroachments.
• Public response is mixed, with growing calls for rehabilitation and policy reform.

The recent demolition of the Chandigarh furniture market has triggered a wave of political outrage, public anger, and emotional distress among traders, who claim their livelihoods have been crushed overnight. The incident, which took place in Industrial Area Phase II, has become a flashpoint in the city’s ongoing debate over urban development, administrative authority, and the rights of informal sector workers.

Early on Monday morning, bulldozers arrived under tight police security and razed dozens of makeshift furniture stalls to the ground. This area had long served as a bustling commercial hub, supplying handcrafted and affordable furniture to residents of Chandigarh, Punjab, and Haryana. Vendors, many of whom had operated there for over a decade, were reportedly taken aback. They say there was no proper prior notice or sufficient time to relocate their goods.

In the hours that followed, visuals of destroyed furniture, shattered wooden panels, and distressed shopkeepers flooded local news and social media. The public backlash was swift. Opposition parties, particularly the Congress, seized the moment to condemn the UT Administration, labelling the action as “inhuman, irresponsible, and politically motivated.”

Chandigarh Congress slams UT Chandigarh, accusing officials of ignoring legal norms and moral responsibilities. The party has now launched protests, demanding immediate relief, compensation for affected traders, and a formal policy for the rehabilitation of displaced vendors. The UT Administration criticised by Congress, has defended its move, stating that the market was an illegal encroachment on government land and that warnings were issued well in advance.

Congress Condemns the Move

The Chandigarh Congress protests demolition, branding it “inhuman and anti-poor.” At a press conference held Tuesday afternoon, Chandigarh Congress President H.S. Lucky condemned the UT Administration’s actions and accused officials of displacing hundreds of families without a rehabilitation plan.

“This is a brutal crackdown on small vendors and daily wage earners,” Lucky said. “The UT Administration has been criticised by Congress not just for the demolition but also for failing to engage with the traders beforehand. No humanity was shown.”

He also alleged that no prior consultation was made and that the affected vendors were offered “zero support” after losing their livelihoods overnight.

Eyewitness Accounts: Chaos and Loss

Eyewitnesses at the site described scenes of panic and confusion. Raj Kumar, a shop owner who has sold handcrafted chairs and tables in the market for over 15 years, stated that the demolition occurred without proper warning.

“They came with bulldozers at 6 AM. We weren’t even allowed to remove our furniture. Everything is gone – tables, chairs, my tools, even our earnings,” he said tearfully.

Another trader, Sunita Devi, who ran a small upholstery stall, added:

“We begged them to give us a few hours, but no one listened. Our only source of income has vanished.”

Videos circulating on social media showed shopkeepers trying to salvage whatever they could while police stood guard, preventing intervention.

UT Officials Defend Action

While public anger grows, the UT Administration has defended its decision, stating that the demolition was carried out to clear encroachments on government land. A spokesperson for the Chandigarh Estate Office said the action was in line with long-standing notices and part of a larger urban planning initiative.

“The furniture market had mushroomed illegally over the past two decades. Despite multiple warnings and notices, the vendors failed to relocate,” the official said.

The administration claimed it had issued eviction notices in advance and that it was acting within the bounds of law to maintain order and regulate unauthorised markets.

However, critics argue that the furniture market’s impact on Chandigarh news is indicative of a larger issue—poor communication between the government and affected communities.

Congress Plans Wider Protest

In response to the incident, the Chandigarh Congress has announced plans to stage a peaceful protest outside the UT Secretariat later this week. Party workers will demand a compensation package and immediate steps to rehabilitate displaced vendors.

Congress leader Pawan Kumar Bansal also weighed in, calling the action “callous” and “unjustified.”

“We are not against city development, but this should not come at the cost of people’s livelihoods. The UT furniture market removal issue must be addressed with compassion, not bulldozers.”

The party is also planning to raise the matter with the Ministry of Home Affairs, which oversees the UT Administration.

Broader Impact and Public Response

The incident has raised broader questions about urban planning and the treatment of informal sector workers in Indian cities. The Chandigarh Congress slams UT Chandigarh for what it sees as an increasing trend of prioritising aesthetics over economic reality.

The city’s furniture market, known for its variety and affordability, had long attracted customers from nearby Punjab and Haryana. Many fear that its removal will not only impact traders but also alter the city’s commercial landscape.

Civil society groups, including the Chandigarh Hawkers’ Association, have also criticised the administration’s approach, demanding a clear policy for street vendors and small businesses.

“Removing markets without providing alternatives only leads to more poverty and inequality,” said Anjali Mehra, an urban policy researcher based in Chandigarh. “If encroachments are a problem, rehabilitation should be the solution, not demolition.”

Political Ramifications and Reactions

The demolition comes at a sensitive time for local politics. With civic elections due next year, opposition parties view this as an opportunity to garner public support.

BJP leaders, meanwhile, have remained mostly silent, with only a brief statement from the UT Administration distancing the political wing from the move. The silence has drawn criticism from several quarters, further fueling the Chandigarh Congress protests and the demolition.

Senior Congress leaders from Punjab and Haryana have also spoken in solidarity with the traders, vowing to raise the issue in the upcoming legislative sessions.

Legal and Administrative Concerns

Legal experts say the demolition, while potentially within administrative rights, may still face challenges if due process was not followed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has, in previous rulings, emphasized the need for fair notice, hearings, and rehabilitation in such cases.

Advocate Rohit Sharma noted:

“Even if the land is government-owned, there are laws and Supreme Court guidelines that protect livelihood rights. If these traders had been operating for decades, they deserved a more humane approach.”

Several affected traders are reportedly planning to file a legal petition challenging the demolition and seeking compensation.

What Happens Next?

With the issue gaining traction, pressure is mounting on the UT Administration to offer clarity. A committee may soon be formed to assess the damage and explore options for vendor rehabilitation, though no official timeline has been provided.

Meanwhile, city residents remain divided. While some argue that clearing illegal markets helps traffic and cleanliness, others express concern over the lack of planning and empathy in handling the situation.

Conclusion

The furniture market news in Chandigarh is not just about demolition. It is about how governments balance development with empathy, law with livelihood, and planning with people’s lives. For the dozens of traders now left jobless, the rubble represents more than lost merchandise—it is the erasure of years of hard work, identity, and economic survival.

The Chandigarh Congress protests demolition not only in defence of those affected but also to demand accountability from the very authorities tasked with public welfare. Their criticism—backed by on-ground visuals, eyewitness testimonies, and civil society opinions—has opened up a necessary debate on how city administrators should approach such actions in the future.