MHA proposes new Chapter ‘K’ under Article 371 for Ladakh

Why in the News

The Union Ministry of Home Affairs has proposed an elected body for the Union Territory of Ladakh through a new constitutional provision under Article 371, in a proposed Chapter K. The proposal answers a demand pressed since 2019, when Ladakh was made a Union Territory without a legislative assembly after the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir lost its special status under Article 370. Civil society representatives who attended the meeting with Ministry officials said they were shown a presentation naming Chapter K but were given no detailed draft proposal. The tension is that the Centre has named a constitutional route. The bodies representing Ladakh continue to demand Statehood and Sixth Schedule status, which the proposed route does not deliver.

What is Article 371?

1. Where it sits: Article 371 falls under Part XXI of the Constitution, which deals with temporary, transitional and special provisions.
2. How it is structured: It currently carries chapters running from A to J, each inserted to give a named State a specific safeguard.
3. Where it applies: It is currently applicable in 12 States, namely Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Mizoram, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Sikkim and Karnataka.

What has the Ministry of Home Affairs actually proposed?

1. A directly elected body: The Ministry stated that the intended Union Territory level body would be elected by direct election.
2. The subjects it would legislate on: The body would have legislative powers with respect to land, culture and language, forest, environment, natural resources, and any other subject matter reserved for the Union Territory under Article 240, which empowers the President to make regulations for certain Union Territories.
3. The Centre’s characterisation of it: The Ladakh Chief Secretary, who attended the meeting, described the broad contours of a sui generis model of governance under Article 371 as having been discussed, with deepening democracy as the goal.

Why are the Ladakh bodies dissatisfied?

1. Nothing new was tabled: The Leh Apex Body (LAB) said the meeting was a reiteration of the earlier meeting held on 22 May.
2. A presentation is not a text: The representatives were given a presentation mentioning Chapter K but were yet to receive a detailed draft proposal from the Ministry.
3. The assurance sought was not given: A climate activist who was part of the delegation said the meeting was not a complete success, since no draft assuring protection under Article 371 was provided.

What else did the two bodies ask for?

1. A freeze on major administrative decisions: The LAB and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) asked that the Lieutenant-Governor of Ladakh take no major decisions on administration, bureaucracy or land until the proposed constitutional safeguards are in place.
2. A legislative deadline: They pressed for the legislation to be passed in the upcoming Winter Session of Parliament.
3. Compensation for the dead: They sought compensation for the families of the victims of the violence that broke out in Leh city on 24 September 2025, where four people were killed in police firing.
4. Withdrawal of cases against protesters: They sought the withdrawal of criminal cases against 80 people, on the lines of the protection given to participants in the “Gen Z protest” at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar in July.

How did Ladakh reach this point?

1. The 2019 reorganisation: After Ladakh lost its special status under Article 370 as part of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, it was turned into a Union Territory without a legislative assembly in 2019.
2. The standing demands: The LAB and the KDA have since demanded Statehood and tribal status for Ladakh, the latter sought through inclusion in the Sixth Schedule, which provides for autonomous district councils with powers over land, forests and customary law.
3. The substantive grievance: Both bodies have sought a larger role for local residents in decisions relating to land and infrastructure projects.
4. The violence followed the demand: The Leh protest at which four people were killed had been called to demand constitutional safeguards.

Challenges to a Chapter K arrangement for Ladakh

1. The route requires a constitutional amendment the executive cannot enact alone: Each existing chapter of Article 371 was inserted by Parliament through an amendment, so a proposal remains a proposal until a Bill is passed. Eg. Article 371G for Mizoram was inserted by the Constitution (Fifty-third Amendment) Act, 1986.
   The Fix: Circulate a draft Bill text to the representative bodies before introduction, so the safeguard is negotiated on words rather than on assurances.
2. Legislative power without financial power leaves the body dependent: An elected body that legislates on land and environment but draws its budget from the Centre can be constrained through the purse rather than through law. Eg. The Union Territory of Puducherry has a legislative assembly and still depends on central transfers for most capital spending.
   The Fix: Attach a defined statutory transfer to the Union Territory body, so its listed subjects carry the money to administer them.
3. The reserved subjects are exactly the contested ones: Land, forest and natural resources are the subjects on which large central projects in Ladakh turn, so the overlap with Union Territory administration is immediate. Eg. Large renewable energy projects planned in Ladakh require substantial allocations of pasture land.
   The Fix: Specify in the chapter itself which land transactions require the elected body’s concurrence, rather than leaving the boundary to executive practice.
4. A Union Territory model does not carry Sixth Schedule protections: Autonomous district councils under the Sixth Schedule hold defined powers over customary law and land alienation that a Union Territory legislature does not automatically acquire. Eg. The Bodoland Territorial Council draws its authority from the Sixth Schedule rather than from a State legislature’s delegation.
   The Fix: State expressly whether the new chapter forecloses or preserves the Sixth Schedule claim, so the two demands are not treated as interchangeable.

Conclusion

The Centre has moved from resisting a constitutional route to naming one, and that is the substantive shift here. What the two sides are negotiating is no longer whether Ladakh gets an elected body, but how much of land, environment and resources that body actually controls. Those subjects are also where the Union Territory administration’s own powers sit, and the proposal has not yet said which prevails. The marker to watch is whether a draft text reaches the representative bodies before a Bill is introduced, since a presentation cannot be negotiated.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2013, GS2, 10.0 marks] Recent directives from Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas are perceived by the `Nagas’ as a threat to override the exceptional status enjoyed by the State. Discuss in light of Article 371A of the Indian Constitution.”