Centre committed to meeting demands of the region, says Ladakh Chief Secretary

The Union Home Ministry’s 32-page document proposed a two-stage route for Ladakh. First would come a constitutional amendment. Next would be a regulation under Article 240. The plan envisaged a directly elected Union Territory-level body. It also mentioned safeguards for land, natural resources, culture, and other issues raised by Ladakh’s representatives. The proposal mattered because it aimed to create a customised constitutional framework without immediately granting every demand.

The Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance rejected the document within about two hours of receiving it. They said it was “a significant departure” from assurances and commitments made during earlier meetings with the Centre. Chief Secretary Ashish Kundra said officials had prepared the proposal in good faith over three to four weeks.

Kundra stressed that the document was only a basis for discussion, not a completed legislative plan. Questions about the body’s name, membership, elections, and powers remained open. The Centre now hopes continued dialogue can produce a framework accepted by Ladakh’s stakeholders.

A sui generis constitutional model is a one-of-a-kind arrangement designed for a particular place. It does not copy a standard state or Union Territory template. For Ladakh, the idea matters because its leaders seek protection for employment, land, religion, culture, the environment, and natural resources, alongside stronger democratic representation.

The proposed mechanism involves a constitutional amendment and a later regulation under Article 240. The Ministry suggested a directly elected Union Territory-level body and possible safeguards in several areas. Kundra also said Article 371 has enough flexibility to provide constitutional protection under a special provision described as “K.” The article does not specify the final legal wording or powers.

The model remains unfinished. Its name, composition, election method, representation, tenure, and relationship with existing institutions are still open. Kundra said Ladakh needs a creative solution, but these matters cannot be settled unilaterally. Continued consultation must turn the broad idea into a workable framework.

According to Chief Secretary Ashish Kundra, Ladakh depends 100% on the Union government for funding. This covers salaries and pensions for employees. The figure is important because it shows the financial challenge behind demands for Statehood with a legislature. Greater institutional responsibility would require dependable resources for administration and public services.

Kundra contrasted Ladakh with Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi. He said those places have separate public accounts and must generate their own revenue to pay salaries. His explanation connected political status with fiscal capacity. It was not a statement that Ladakh has no revenue at all, but that the Union currently fully funds these employee costs.

This dependence shapes the continuing negotiations. The Chief Secretary used it to explain why Statehood would require a specific context and financial arrangements. The article does not say whether the proposed Union Territory body would raise taxes, control a public account, or manage salaries. Those questions would need clarification in future discussions.

The proposed body would give Ladakh a directly elected Union Territory-level institution. Its broad purpose would be to deepen democracy and represent local demands in a formal structure. The proposal mentioned safeguards for land, natural resources, culture, and other concerns. Employment, religion, the environment, and constitutional protection are also central issues in the wider talks.

The key mechanism would be a constitutional amendment followed by regulation under Article 240. That framework could define the body’s responsibilities and the protections it administers or helps shape. However, the article does not assign specific powers over land, hiring, culture, resources, or environmental decisions. Its authority would depend on the final text.

Many design questions remain open. These include elections, constituencies, representation of women and underrepresented communities, tenure, and links with existing councils and local bodies. Therefore, the body could strengthen local decision-making, but its real effect cannot yet be measured. The Centre says negotiations must produce a balanced and workable arrangement.

The proposed Union Territory-level body would operate alongside institutions that already govern parts of Ladakh. These include the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils, Panchayats, and municipalities. The central issue is avoiding confusion over who makes decisions, who implements them, and how local representation connects to the new body.

The mechanism has not been settled. The Ministry’s document was described as a possible constitutional framework, not a concluded legislative process. Officials still need to decide the body’s nomenclature, composition, election method, representation, tenure, and relationship with existing institutions. The article gives no final division of subjects, funding, or administrative authority.

This unresolved relationship is crucial to whether the arrangement works. A directly elected body could add democratic representation, but overlapping responsibilities could create institutional conflict unless the rules are clear. Kundra said broad-based consensus is necessary. Further dialogue among the Centre, LAB, KDA, and other Ladakh stakeholders is expected before the framework is formally shaped.

Article 371 is a constitutional provision allowing special arrangements for particular states or regions. The article presents it as flexible enough to support a customised model for Ladakh, including constitutional protection under a special provision described as “K.” The Sixth Schedule is another constitutional framework, used in Northeastern States for protections and autonomous arrangements in specified tribal areas.

Kundra said the Sixth Schedule was introduced because a minority community needed safeguards against discrimination by a majority community. He argued that it has a specific geographical and historical context. This explanation is the Centre’s stated reason for saying the same framework may not directly fit Ladakh’s circumstances.

Ladakh’s groups continue to demand Statehood and inclusion in the Sixth Schedule. The Centre instead supports a sui generis model shaped around Ladakh’s own conditions. The article does not settle whether the Sixth Schedule is legally impossible or merely unsuitable. It records an argument for a different approach, with further negotiations still required.

In India, a State normally has a broader elected government, legislative authority, and responsibility for administration and public finances. A Union Territory is administered within a framework where the Union government has a stronger role. Some Union Territories may have elected bodies, but their powers differ. The article focuses on this financial and institutional distinction rather than listing every constitutional division.

Kundra said Ladakh depends 100% on the Centre to fund employee salaries and pensions. He contrasted this with Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi, which he said have separate public accounts and must generate their own revenue for salaries. This illustrates how financial responsibility affects the practical meaning of self-government.

The proposed directly elected Union Territory-level body would not automatically make Ladakh a State. Its powers, revenue role, and relationship with existing institutions remain undecided. Statehood and a legislature remain demands, while the Centre is pursuing a customised Union Territory framework. The final balance between Union control and local representation depends on future negotiations.