A new management model for Ladakh

People holding placards take part in a protest demanding the implementation of the 6th Statehood Plan for Ladakh in January 2026. | Photo credit: ANI

Ladakh’s demand for Sixth Schedule status and the Home Ministry’s proposal to establish a directly elected legislative body for administration in the Union Territory have created a paradoxical situation and raised the question of whether the UT can be given such a status. Whether it would be constitutionally valid to equate states and UTs in the context of their respective governance is a question worth exploring. Indian federalism is unique in that it generally functions as a federation, while during an emergency it becomes a perfectly union. This is why the Supreme Court called it an “amphibian” in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977). This observation means that while India intends to distribute resources equitably through its federal structure, it maintains a unitary character to ensure the unity and integrity of the nation.

Furthermore, Indian territory includes states, UTs and any other territory acquired under international law, making it a decentralized federal design. The political idea behind this proposal is to include every cultural and ethnic group in democratic governance to maintain its political structure. This was also the main reason behind the provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Plans, which provide for Scheduled Areas and Autonomous Regions, especially to ensure the inclusion of tribal communities. Functionally, this proposal is based on the “Doctrine of Proportionality” in order to achieve Rawls’ principle of justice, i.e. the greatest benefit to the least advantaged. Due to its unique ethnic composition and cultural specificity, Ladakh has claimed Sixth Schedule status. However, the central government is unwilling to grant this status and has instead proposed an elected legislature for a sui generic model of governance.

What is the Sixth Plan?

The Sixth Plan covers only Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram primarily because most of these areas were part of Assam during British rule and were classified as “Excluded” or “Partially Excluded” areas. Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram later became separate states and retained protection under the Sixth Plan. The Sixth Schedule is governed by Article 244(2) and Article 275(1). The Governor has the power to create new autonomous regions by public notification. Each such district is governed by a district council with a maximum of 30 members. In short, the Sixth Schedule states have considerable autonomy in governance.

Ladakh became a Union Territory without a legislature under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. Many local groups have expressed concerns about the protection of the culture of the Ladakhi people, including their language, traditions and customs. They also wanted to prevent foreigners from acquiring land in Ladakh as it could deprive the local people of their land rights. Local groups are particularly unhappy with the way political representation has been given to Ladakh. All these factors have contributed significantly to the demand for Sixth Schedule status.

Draft Article 371-K

The government has proposed to insert Article 371-K in Part XXI of the Constitution (Transitional, Transitional and Special Provisions) to strike a balance between the state administration and the local self-government. If the government grants special status under the Sixth Plan to Ladakh, the autonomy it would get could prove detrimental to national security given Ladakh’s strategic location near China. However, the ethno-cultural aspects of Ladakh must also be protected through an effective and autonomous local government.

In this context, the proposal to provide a directly elected legislative body seems more rational, as it would not only ensure adequate and proper political representation, but also involve the local population in the decision-making process. The proposed structure may place this body above the existing Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDCs), while retaining panchayats and district institutions. However, the role of the Lieutenant Commander after the establishment of this authority has yet to be clearly defined. Furthermore, the extent of the powers that said body could have, especially in terms of financial autonomy, remains to be seen. Since India is a functional federation in which financial and residuary powers are vested in the Union rather than the states, it remains to be decided whether such powers would be vested in the legislature.

The constitutionality of the proposal

Granting a special status or providing a sui generis model of governance to a Union Territory is certainly constitutionally valid as Indian constitutional governance practices equitable distribution of rights among states and other units within its territory. It also applies the principle of proportionality and can therefore grant special powers or status to an NSO based on its location, development requirements and the need to protect its democratic identity. Earlier, through constitutional amendments, Parliament made special provisions for the National Capital Territory of Delhi under Articles 239 AA and 239 AB. This makes it clear that Parliament can grant special status to any UT.

Thus, the proposal to insert Article 371-K is expected to provide the desired autonomy without adversely affecting the territorial integrity of the nation.

(CBP Srivastava is President, Center for Applied Research in Governance, Delhi)

Published – 29 Sep 2026 07:00 IST