GS Paper 2 — Indian Polity: Centre-State relations, special constitutional provisions, tribal area governance, Union Territory administration

Five years after Jammu & Kashmir was divided into two Union Territories in 2019, Ladakh remains India’s only UT with no elected legislature at all. Every decision — big or small — is taken by a Lieutenant Governor (LG) appointed by the Central government. The Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) — representing the Buddhist-majority and Muslim-majority communities of Ladakh respectively — met the Ministry of Home Affairs in May 2026 to press their demands. Civil society activist Sonam Wangchuk has also been vocal. The announcement of 5 new districts in Ladakh, while a small step, has not addressed the main demand: give Ladakh’s people a voice in their own governance.

 1. How Did Ladakh Lose Its Voice? — What Happened in 2019

•       Before August 2019, Ladakh was a part of the state of Jammu & Kashmir. It had elected representatives in the J&K assembly.
•       On August 5, 2019, the government scrapped Article 370 (which gave J&K a special status) and passed the J&K Reorganisation Act 2019. This split J&K into two separate Union Territories: J&K UT (with a legislature) and Ladakh UT (without a legislature).
•       Under Article 239 of the Constitution, a UT without a legislature is directly governed by the LG — who is an appointed official, not an elected one.
•       This means: Ladakh’s 2.8 lakh people have two Lok Sabha MPs but zero elected MLAs. All administrative decisions — including on land, jobs, and local development — are made by the LG and the Central government.
•       Both the Buddhist community (Leh region) and the Muslim community (Kargil region) — who rarely agree on things — are united in demanding democratic rights. That unity is significant.

2. What Are the Four Demands and What Does the Constitution Say?

The people of Ladakh have four main demands:

• Statehood: Make Ladakh a full state with its own elected assembly. This requires the Centre to use Article 3 of the Constitution (Parliament’s power to form new states or change UT status) — and needs only a simple majority in Parliament, not a special majority.
• Sixth Schedule protection: Include Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution (Articles 244 and 275), which gives tribal communities in north-eastern states the right to protect their land, culture, and natural resources through Autonomous District Councils. Ladakh has similar tribal communities that need the same protection.
•  Jobs for locals: Set up a separate civil service cadre for Ladakh (currently it falls under the AGMUT cadre — shared with Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram, and UTs). This would ensure that government jobs in Ladakh go to Ladakhi people.
• Separate Lok Sabha seat for Kargil: Kargil currently shares a parliamentary constituency with Leh. Given the vast geographic size and cultural difference, Kargil wants its own MP.

 3. What Options Does the Centre Have?

• Article 3 — Full statehood: Parliament can pass a simple law making Ladakh a state. No special majority needed. The concern is security — Ladakh shares borders with China and Pakistan. But this is a policy choice, not a constitutional barrier.
• Article 239AA — Legislature without full statehood: Delhi and Puducherry have legislatures even though they are UTs. Ladakh can be given the same arrangement — an elected assembly with limited powers, while security remains with the LG.
• Sixth Schedule extension: This requires a constitutional amendment (two-thirds majority). It would immediately give Ladakhi tribal communities legal protection over their land and culture — even without a full legislature.
• Strengthening existing Hill Councils: Ladakh already has Hill Councils in Leh and Kargil. These can be given more budget, more powers, and elected legislative functions — similar to the Bodoland Territorial Council in Assam.

UPSC Value Box

4. What Should Be Done? — The Way Forward

1.   Immediate: Extend the Sixth Schedule to Ladakh through a constitutional amendment. This protects land rights and tribal culture right away — without waiting for statehood decisions.
2.   Short-term: Empower the existing Hill Councils in Leh and Kargil with statutory budgets and legislative powers — similar to the Bodoland Territorial Council model.
3.   Medium-term: Give Ladakh an elected assembly under the Article 239AA model (like Puducherry) — an elected legislature with security remaining under the LG’s control.
4.   Long-term: Have an open and honest conversation about full statehood — including how to address security concerns through a special Centre-State arrangement.

Conclusion: Ladakh’s people waited patiently for 5 years, trusting the government’s promise of development and progress. That patience is wearing out. Giving people democratic rights does not threaten national security — in fact, a population that feels heard and respected is the strongest defender of its own border. India must find a constitutional solution that honours both its security needs and its democratic values.

UPSC Mains Practice Question