The home ministry’s draft on the legal status of the Union Territory weakens provisions agreed to in May while ignoring crucial demands.

Ashish Kothari

5 hours ago

Ladakh Lieutenant Governor Vinai KumarSaxena and other o!cials stand infront of a statue of Buddha thatwas installed at the newpassenger terminal of Leh Airportin October. | LG Ladakh@lg_ladakh/X

In the latest chapter of the six-year-long saga of Ladakh’squest for democratic autonomy,the Central government inOctober continued its record ofbroken promises.

In February, it had gone back on its assurance made in 2019 that Ladakh would get autonomy under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, just like four other tribal areas in the North East. This was when the status of Jammu and Kashmir’s status was downgraded to two Union Territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

The Sixth Schedule allows for the establishment of autonomous district councils and autonomous regional councils that can make laws on local matters.

Many years of agitations and high-level committee meetings and the deaths of four protestors in police firing inSeptember 2025 finally resulted in a breakthrough in May.

An agreement was reached between the Ministry of Home A!airs and the representatives of Ladakhi people – theLadakh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance. It stated that statehood would remain the long-term aspirationof Ladakh. But “as a first step, an appropriate customized model of governance by establishing a UT-level electedbody with executive, financial and legislative powers would be established”.

Among the Constitutional provisions that were to be considered was Article 371 of the Constitution, under which some regions and states, such as Nagaland, are accorded considerable autonomy to decide on crucial matters related to their own cultural, ecological, and economic needs.

But on October 15, the home ministry sent a draft of the legal status it was proposing for Ladakh, with provisions that aresignificantly weaker than what was agreed to in May. This draft is meant only for discussion, and “not to be construed as a final position or an o”cial document”, the ministry clarified.

However, it clearly indicates what the ministry is thinking.

It has proposed a Constitutional provision for an elected body for Ladakh as a Union Territory and details about itspowers and functions under Article 240, which deals with Union Territories.

This falls considerably short of a status under the Sixth Schedule or Article 371, which would have given Ladakhrelative autonomy over crucial aspects like land, nature and natural resources, the bureaucracy, revenuegeneration and budgeting, legal and policy matters, and others.

This has been felt necessary by Ladakhis, and even accepted in principle by New Delhi, to enable the kind of development and decision-making that would be in tune with the region’s unique

ecological and cultural heritage. There is over half a century of Constitutional and legal precedence for this, as severalregions and sections of people in India have enjoyed such a status in recognition of the country’s enormous diversity.

This even includes the power to accept or reject national laws – for example, as with Nagaland and Mizoram – and make one’s own laws, as long as they do not violate the Constitution.

The home ministry’s draft provides for a legislative body to be elected by Ladakhis, and for such a body to have powerson aspects like land, culture and heritage, environmental planning and conservation and development planning. So far,so good.

But, reading the provisions proposed under Article 240, the inadequacies become clear, many of which have been pointedout by the Ladakh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance in a rejoinder sent to the home ministry on October 19.

Ladakh Lieutenant Governor VKSaxena inaugurates the EcoMunicipal Park at Leh in October.Credit: LG Ladakh @lg_ladakh

Firstly, any provisions underArticle 240 can be unilaterallyremoved or changed by theCentral government, unlikesuch provisions being in theConstitution itself, which wouldrequire an amendment (taken through the Parliament) for any change.

Secondly, some crucial aspects on which Ladakhis should have control, have been left out of the list of items that the legislative body will have powers over, including natural resources. Third, legal, budgetary, and other crucial steps taken by the Ladakhi legislative body are subject to assent by the Lieutenant Governor (or Administrator) appointed by New Delhi.

Fourth, there is little financial autonomy. The draft says that “the UT Level Body would prepare its budget within its allocation, approve it, and submit it to the (Union) Government. Spending would take place after approval of the Government”.

Fifth, central laws would apply to Ladakh, and any regulations formulated by the Union territory’s legislative bodywould “not a!ect the powers of the Parliament, Courts, Central Government, or the Administrator”. This is seriouslyshort of the legal autonomy that states like Nagaland and Mizoram have, and which Ladakh has also demanded.

Sixth, the Lieutenant Governor has the power to “dissolve the UT Level Body, after giving it notice and achance to respond, for reasons such as persistent default or abuse of power”. As the response to home ministry by theLadakh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance says, this renders the elected body answerable to New Delhirather than to the public that has elected it. And it does not give the Ladakh body powers over the bureaucracy, whichwas agreed to in May.

In all of these and other ways, the home ministry’s draft makes Ladakh fully subservient to New Delhi. Even the language in the draft reeks of centralised power. For instance, with regard to the Ladakh legislative body as also Hill Councils at district levels, it says: “The Union’s executive power would extend to giving direction to both the bodies.”

Why is the Central Government so reluctant to grant the legitimate needs and demands of Ladakh? Perhaps this can be understood in the context of India’s political economy. For over adecade, New Delhi has worked to subject “frontier” areas of India to more centralised control, and made it easier for powerful commercial and industrial interests to profit from theuse of

their lands, water, minerals, and other lucrative assets.

Constitutional provisions that were meant to safeguard the unique ecological and cultural heritage of such areas, and enable them to develop based on their own wisdom and capacities with sensitive help from New Delhi, are hurdles for such a quest.

There are reports of several commercially valuable minerals being found in Ladakh, lucrative tourism is beingeyed by big players (thus far not allowed by local players), mega-solar projects are being planned, and majorroad construction has been underway since 2019. Most big contracts are going to outsiders.

Ladakh, like Kashmir, North East India, Kutch Lakshadweep, Andaman & Nicobar, is a mouth-watering destination for Indian and foreign companies keen to make a quick buck, regardless of the evident disastrous impacts on the local ecology and people.

In all this, the narrative that the central government needs to retain a stronghold on Ladakh for reasons of defence (thehungry Chinese wolf imagery comes to mind), is simply an excuse. Were this a real reason, Gujarat, Rajasthan,Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Assam, Sikkim and others would all have been Union territories administered from NewDelhi.

Indeed, as Ladakhi leaders like Sonam Wangchuk have repeatedly said, a disgruntled civilian population in border areas is hardly a way to ensure their security.

Beyond the issue of Ladakh’s Constitutional status, some other key demands made by the Ladakh Apex Bodyand the Kargil Democratic Alliance remain to be addressed. Earlier, the home ministry had accepted somedemands, such as recognition of Bhoti, Purgi and Urdu as o”cial languages, one-third reservation for women in theLadakh Hill Councils, clarification on domicile status of residents, enhanced reservation for Scheduled Tribes, andcreation of 2,000 jobs for youth. These are welcome.

But others that the home ministry has agreed to have not been addressed, including: dropping of criminal cases filedagainst several Ladakhis who were part of the protests in September 2025, as they are considered to be unfair; andenhanced compensation to the families of the people killed or injured in police firing then.

The police action that day has left a deep wound in Ladakh’s psyche, which the Administration of the Union territory and New Delhi have done little to heal.

Another agreement was that no major administrative or legislative measure would be taken by

the administration till an agreed-to Constitutional status is operationalised. But this has already been violated, with the Union Law Ministry promulgating the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (Amendment) Regulations 2026 without consulting the Ladakh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance or other Ladakhirepresentative bodies.

These groups have already voiced their disappointment at the draft by the home ministry and submitted their reasons forfeeling short-changed. The demand for providing full democratic powers to Ladakh has been reiterated.

They hope that New Delhi will listen to this legitimate demand and stop dragging the matter, while it also clears big-ticket projects that threaten to gobble up land and reduce the chances of Ladakhis determining their own present and future.

Ashish Kothari is an environmental researcher-activist based in Pune. Views are personal.

© 2026 Scroll.in