Last Updated:
Ladakh may get special constitutional safeguards under proposed Article 371(K), but key questions over legislative powers, land, resources and the LG’s role remain unresolved
Before 2019, Ladakh was part of Jammu and Kashmir and had representation within the state’s political and administrative system. (AFP)
For years, Ladakh’s political demands have revolved around a basic question—after becoming a Union Territory in 2019, how much say should its people have over their land, jobs, resources and governance?
Now, there appears to be a possible breakthrough.
According to The Indian Express, during the latest round of discussions between representatives of Ladakh and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the Centre has proposed a new constitutional provision—Article 371(K)—that could give the Union Territory greater safeguards and legislative powers over issues, including land, culture and language, forests, environment and natural resources.
The proposal, however, does not settle the larger question of how much power an elected Ladakh body would actually exercise. Several key issues, including the extent of its legislative authority and the division of powers with the Lieutenant Governor and the Union government, remain under discussion.
That is why the latest development is significant, but may not yet amount to a final settlement.
What Has The Centre Offered Ladakh?
According to The Indian Express, the Centre has offered to introduce a new constitutional provision, Article 371(K), as part of ongoing negotiations with Ladakh representatives.
The proposal is aimed at providing constitutional safeguards to Ladakh, which has sought stronger protection for its land, culture, employment opportunities and environment since it became a separate Union Territory in 2019. The Centre’s proposal could provide an elected Union Territory-level body with legislative powers in specified areas, although several important questions about the extent of those powers remain unresolved.
The Times of India also reported that Ladakh’s regional groups, the Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance, viewed the latest talks as a breakthrough on legislative powers relating to land, culture and language, forests and natural resources.
The Economic Times reported that the MHA has also proposed a directly elected UT-level body with legislative authority over areas such as land, culture, language, forests, environment and natural resources.
But there is an important distinction: the proposal is not the same thing as an already enacted constitutional provision.
The Constitution presently contains special provisions from Article 371 through Article 371J for different states. There is currently no Article 371(K). The latest proposal would therefore require a constitutional amendment if the Centre and Ladakh’s representatives eventually agree on this framework.
Why Does Ladakh Want Special Constitutional Protection?
To understand the current negotiations, it is important to go back to August and October 2019.
The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, reorganised the erstwhile state into two Union Territories—Jammu and Kashmir, with a legislature, and Ladakh, without one. The law was enacted on August 9, 2019, and the new Union Territories came into existence on October 31 that year. This fundamentally changed Ladakh’s political structure.
Before 2019, Ladakh was part of Jammu and Kashmir and had representation within the state’s political and administrative system. After the reorganisation, it became a Union Territory without a legislative assembly.
The Ladakh administration itself describes the region as having become a Union Territory on October 31, 2019. Its General Administration Department functions under the supervision and control of the Lieutenant Governor, the LG’s adviser and the administrative secretary.
That structure is at the heart of the political debate.
Ladakh’s leaders have argued that the region needs stronger democratic representation and constitutional safeguards because decisions concerning land, employment, development and natural resources are ultimately made within a Union Territory framework in which there is no elected legislative assembly.
What Exactly Has Ladakh Been Demanding?
The demands have evolved, but four have been particularly important:
1. Statehood: A section of Ladakh’s political leadership has demanded that the Union Territory be converted into a full-fledged state, giving it its own elected legislature and government.
2. Sixth Schedule Protection: Ladakh has also sought inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides a system of autonomous administration for specified tribal areas.
3. Protection Of Land, Jobs And Culture: Local groups have repeatedly sought safeguards against the loss of land and employment opportunities, while also demanding protection for Ladakh’s distinctive cultural and linguistic traditions.
4. Greater Political Representation: The demand is not limited to cultural protection. Ladakh’s political groups have also sought an institutional mechanism through which locally elected representatives can make decisions affecting the region.
The MHA has been holding talks with representatives of the Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance over these demands. Economic Times reported in October 2025 that discussions included Sixth Schedule status, statehood and reservation, among other issues.
So, What Is Article 371(K) Supposed To Do?
This is where the latest proposal becomes important.
Article 371 is not a single model of autonomy. The Constitution contains different special provisions for different states, tailored to their individual circumstances.
For example, Article 371A provides special protection for Nagaland. Parliament’s laws relating to Naga religious or social practices, customary law and procedure, administration of civil and criminal justice involving customary law, and ownership and transfer of land and its resources do not apply unless the Nagaland Assembly decides otherwise.
Similarly, Article 371G provides special protection for Mizoram in areas including Mizo social and religious practices, customary law and procedure, customary justice, and ownership and transfer of land.
This illustrates an important point: An Article 371 provision does not automatically mean statehood or a full-fledged autonomous government. Each provision has to be examined separately to see exactly what powers and protections it creates.
That is why the eventual wording of Article 371(K), if it is introduced, will matter enormously.
Sixth Schedule Vs Article 371(K): What Is The Difference?
This is perhaps the most important part of the current debate.
The Sixth Schedule creates autonomous district and regional councils in specified tribal areas. The Constitution provides these councils with defined administrative, legislative and financial powers.
For instance, Sixth Schedule councils can have authority over the administration of autonomous districts and regions. The constitutional framework also provides for powers relating to land revenue and taxation.
In simple terms, the Sixth Schedule is built around autonomous councils with constitutionally defined powers.
An Article 371-type provision, on the other hand, can be designed specifically for the circumstances of a particular state or territory. The exact safeguards and powers depend on the wording of the provision.
Why Does The Centre’s Latest Proposal Matter, Then?
Because it could offer Ladakh something it currently does not have: a constitutionally backed elected institution with defined legislative powers over key local issues.
The Economic Times reported that the proposed UT-level body could have legislative authority over land, culture, language, forests, environment and natural resources.
For Ladakh, these are not abstract issues.
Land is closely linked to demographic and economic concerns. Culture and language are central to the region’s identity. Forests, water and other natural resources are critical in a fragile Himalayan environment. And environmental questions have become increasingly important as tourism, infrastructure and development expand.
Giving an elected local body a role in these areas could therefore significantly change the balance between local representation and central administration.
But, How Much Power?
This is where the apparent breakthrough has to be viewed cautiously.
The latest discussions have reportedly made progress on certain subjects, but not all questions concerning legislative and administrative powers have been settled.
The key issue is not simply whether Ladakh gets an elected body. It is what can that elected body actually decide?
For example, will it be able to make laws independently in the subjects assigned to it? What happens when its decisions conflict with the Union government’s position? How much control will the Lieutenant Governor retain? What will happen with subjects that fall under the Union List or Concurrent List?
And, crucially, what happens to areas such as law and order and policing, which are particularly sensitive in a strategically located Union Territory?
These questions matter because an elected body can have political legitimacy without necessarily possessing the full range of powers normally associated with a state government.
Earlier, discussions had already highlighted disagreements over the scope of Sixth Schedule protection and statehood. A Times of India report from February this year said the government’s high-powered MHA panel had questioned whether the Sixth Schedule, in itself, would provide sufficient autonomy and safeguards for Ladakh.
Why Doesn’t Ladakh Simply Get A Legislature?
This is another important distinction.
The 2019 reorganisation created Jammu and Kashmir as a Union Territory with a legislature, while Ladakh was created as a Union Territory without a legislature.
The difference is significant. A legislative assembly can make laws on subjects assigned to it under the constitutional framework. Ladakh currently does not have such an assembly.
The latest proposal for an elected UT-level body is therefore significant because it could introduce a new layer of representative law-making without necessarily converting Ladakh into a state. That makes the proposal something of a middle ground between the existing UT arrangement and the more expansive demand for statehood.
What About The Hill Councils?
Ladakh already has autonomous hill development councils in Leh and Kargil. These bodies provide a degree of local administration, but they are not equivalent to a full-fledged state legislature.
This distinction is becoming even more important because the Centre has now moved to create autonomous hill development councils in all districts of Ladakh.
The Indian Express reported this week that all districts in the Union Territory will now have autonomous hill development councils, with the move being presented as a way to strengthen local participation and administration.
So, Ladakh could potentially have multiple layers of local governance where hill councils could be district-level administration, the proposed elected UT-level body which could have wider legislative powers, the lieutenant governor/UT administration could be the administration and powers retained by the Union Territory. The exact relationship between these institutions will therefore be crucial.
Why Is The Issue So Politically Sensitive?
Because the demand is not merely administrative. It is tied to the larger question of what Ladakh’s political status should be after 2019.
The region has seen repeated protests and political mobilisation around demands for statehood, constitutional safeguards and greater local control.
The issue became particularly contentious after protests in 2025 turned violent. The unrest highlighted the depth of dissatisfaction in parts of Ladakh over the pace and outcome of negotiations.
Ahead of the latest talks, the Leh Apex Body postponed planned protest marches, saying it hoped the discussions with the Centre would produce substantive progress but warning that agitation could resume if they failed.
The latest proposal has therefore arrived at a politically important moment.
Is Article 371(K) A Compromise?
Potentially, yes. That may be the most useful way to understand the proposal.
At one end is the status quo: Ladakh remains a Union Territory without a legislature, with administration centred around the Lieutenant Governor and the Union government. At the other end is statehood: an elected state government and legislature with constitutionally defined powers.
The proposed Article 371(K) model appears to be an attempt to create something in between—a Union Territory that remains under the existing constitutional framework but receives special constitutional safeguards and greater elected legislative authority in specified areas.
Whether Ladakh’s political groups accept that compromise will depend largely on the details.
What Happens Next?
The immediate task is to settle the unresolved powers and the institutional design.
The Centre and Ladakh’s representatives will have to determine:
• The exact wording and scope of the proposed Article 371(K)
• The powers of the proposed elected UT-level body
• Its relationship with the Lieutenant Governor
• The subjects over which it can make laws
• The extent of its authority over land, jobs, forests, environment and natural resources
• The division of powers between the elected body and the Union government
• The future role and powers of the existing Hill Councils
• Whether the arrangement adequately addresses Ladakh’s demand for constitutional safeguards
There is also one larger political question: Will Ladakh’s leaders see special constitutional protection as an acceptable alternative to statehood and Sixth Schedule status?
That is likely to determine whether the latest talks become a genuine breakthrough or simply another stage in a long-running negotiation.
For now, the significance of Article 371(K) lies less in the name of the proposed provision and more in the powers eventually written into it.
If those powers give Ladakh meaningful control over land, culture, resources and local development while creating a genuinely representative institution, the proposal could mark the biggest change in Ladakh’s governance since 2019. If the crucial powers remain with the Centre and the Lieutenant Governor, however, the demand for statehood and stronger autonomy is unlikely to disappear.
Quick Answers
The Centre has proposed Article 371(K) as a new constitutional provision to provide Ladakh with greater safeguards and legislative powers over issues like land, culture, language, forests, environment, and natural resources. This would require a constitutional amendment if agreed upon.
About the Author
Apoorva Misra is an Associate Editor at News18.com with a keen interest in politics and current affairs. She loves uncovering fresh angles and telling stories through long-form features and explainers…Read More
Ladakh, India, India
September 10, 2026, 11:31 IST
Read More
