MHA Proposes New Chapter ‘K’ Under Article 371 For Ladakh 

Syllabus: GS2/Polity & Governance

Context

• Recently, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) discussed a proposed Article 371(K) to provide Ladakh with constitutional safeguards and a directly elected governing body.

Why is Article 371 relevant to Ladakh?

• The proposed Article 371(K) would be significant because the existing Article 371 framework primarily provides special arrangements for States, whereas Ladakh is a Union Territory without a legislature.
• Thus, a new 371(K) could represent a sui generis constitutional model for Ladakh, potentially giving an elected UT-level body legislative powers over land, culture and language, forests, environment and natural resources.

Background: Why Does Ladakh Seek Safeguards?

• Ladakh was separated from Jammu and Kashmir and made a Union Territory (UT) without a legislature in August 2019.
• The absence of an elected Assembly led to growing political alienation while this initially generated enthusiasm in Leh.
• Ladakh had earlier been represented by four MLAs in the J&K Assembly, but its post-2019 administration has largely been bureaucratic.
• Concerns were further intensified by changes in domicile rules in Jammu and Kashmir, raising apprehensions regarding land, employment, demography and cultural identity.
• The UT has two Hill Councils i.e. the Leh Autonomous Hill Development Council and Kargil Autonomous Hill Development Council but they are not covered by the Sixth Schedule and have limited powers.
• The Leh Apex Body (LAB) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) have therefore demanded statehood, tribal status/Sixth Schedule protection and greater democratic control over land and infrastructure decisions.

What Has the Centre Proposed?

• The MHA has proposed a sui generis governance model under Article 371, through a new Chapter K. The proposed body would:
  • be directly elected;
  • possess legislative powers over land, culture and language, forests, environment and natural resources; and
  • potentially legislate on other matters reserved for the UT under Article 240.
• The proposal follows an ‘in-principle understanding’ reached during discussions in May and July 2026.
• However, the MHA has not yet provided a detailed draft. Representatives have consequently described the proposal as incomplete.

Key Unresolved Issues

• The major questions concern:
  • Executive powers of the elected body;
  • control over finances, budgets and planning;
  • control over the bureaucracy;
  • authority over police and law and order; and
  • the extent of the Lieutenant Governor’s powers.
• Ladakh representatives have demanded that the L-G should not take major administrative, bureaucratic or land-related decisions until the new arrangement is finalised.

Sixth Schedule vs Article 371(K)

• The Sixth Schedule under Article 244 provides constitutionally protected Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) with legislative, judicial and administrative powers over subjects including land, forests, water, agriculture, village councils, health, sanitation, inheritance, social customs and mining.
• It currently applies to tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura.
• The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) recommended in September 2019 that Ladakh be brought under it, citing its overwhelmingly tribal population and distinct cultural heritage.
  • However, no area outside the Northeast has so far been included in the Sixth Schedule.
• Article 371 and Articles 371-A to 371-J provide special arrangements for specific States.
  • For instance, Article 371-A protects Naga customary practices, religious and social matters, and ownership/transfer of land and resources; similar protections exist for Mizoram under Article 371-G.
• The proposed Article 371(K) would create a tailor-made UT-level constitutional arrangement, rather than simply extending the Sixth Schedule to Ladakh.

Source: TH