‘Wangchuk’s campaign of falsehood’: Ladakh admin hits back on activist’s booze shop claims

Sonam Wangchuk’s claim focused on both the spread of liquor outlets and public opposition to them. He said shops were appearing “in every nook and corner” of Ladakh. He also claimed protests had taken place in the Zanskar area over liquor sales. The allegation mattered because it portrayed the new excise policy as causing widespread social unrest.

Wangchuk repeated the claims on social media and shared purported videos of women’s protests. The administration strongly rejected the allegations. It called them “false”, “baseless” and “totally imaginary”. Officials said the claims created unnecessary public alarm and accused him of running a deliberate campaign of misinformation.

The administration pointed to its records instead. After the policy was rolled back, only one liquor shop was operational across Ladakh. It said the old policy allowed two shops in Leh, but only one received a bid and opened after the October 14 auction.

An excise policy is a set of government rules for products such as alcohol. It usually covers taxation, licences, auctions, outlet numbers and operating conditions. The policy matters because alcohol sales involve both public revenue and public-health concerns. Clear rules can also make sellers accountable and help authorities monitor the market.

In Ladakh, the excise policy determined how many retail liquor outlets could operate and who could receive licences. The 2026–27 proposal sought to increase retail outlets from two to 20. It also required applicants to meet prescribed norms, including distance criteria from highways, religious institutions and educational institutions. Licences could be issued only after those requirements were met.

The policy was later withdrawn after public feedback. The earlier 2025–26 policy was restored. Under that system, only two liquor shops in Leh were permitted, although only one became operational after an auction because no bid was received for the second.

The administration’s current figures show a much smaller retail liquor network than the proposed 2026–27 expansion. Only one liquor shop is operational across Ladakh. The restored policy permits two shops in Leh, but the second received no bid during the auction process. This distinction separates permitted capacity from actual operations.

Bars are more numerous. The administration lists 50 retail liquor vends in bars with restaurants: 38 in Leh, seven in Nubra, three in Zanskar and two in Changthang. Two additional beer bars operate in Leh. Counting those categories gives 52 operational bars. The figures describe licensed venues rather than standalone liquor shops.

Nine hotels in Leh hold liquor licences, and one hotel in Nubra also holds a licence. That makes 10 licensed hotels across Ladakh. Four Leh hotels and the Nubra hotel received licences this year. Licences depend on meeting prescribed norms, including distance rules.

The Ladakh administration said the proposed expansion was not simply about opening more liquor shops. Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena said the reforms were intended to reduce dependence on narcotic substances, strengthen regulation and support tourism-led economic activity. The policy therefore linked alcohol availability with enforcement, consumer choice and the regional economy.

The proposal would have increased retail liquor outlets from two to 20. Saxena argued that people should have “a wider choice of low alcoholic content liquor”. The stated mechanism was substitution: regulated, lower-alcohol products could offer an alternative to narcotics or drugs, while licensing would give authorities greater oversight of sellers and venues.

The plan drew widespread criticism from local representatives. After feedback and suggestions from people and social organisations, the administration rolled the policy back. The old 2025–26 policy was restored, so the proposed expansion did not remain in force.

The 2026–27 excise policy did not remain in force. Ladakh’s administration said it was rolled back on August 6 after receiving feedback and suggestions from people and social organisations. This response shows that the proposed expansion was changed after public consultation and criticism, rather than being implemented as originally announced.

The proposal to open wine shops was withdrawn by the Lieutenant Governor. Because of that decision, the auction notice issued under the new policy was cancelled. The administration then restored the earlier excise policy for 2025–26, which had been issued on April 4, 2025.

The restored policy sharply limited standalone retail outlets. It permitted only two liquor shops in Leh. One became operational after an auction on October 14, 2026, while no bid was received for the other. The administration therefore said only one liquor shop was operating in the entire Union Territory, not 20.

Ladakh controls alcohol sales through licensing and prescribed operating norms. The administration said licences are issued only to applicants who satisfy those requirements. This system lets officials decide which applicants may sell alcohol and helps distinguish authorised venues from unlicensed outlets. It also provides a basis for checking whether businesses continue to follow the rules.

One important control is the distance criterion. Licensed outlets must meet distance requirements relating to highways, religious institutions and educational institutions. The article does not give the exact distances, but it identifies the locations covered by the rule. These conditions apply to liquor shops, bars or other applicants seeking permission under the excise system.

Such rules aim to keep alcohol sales away from places where traffic, worship or children’s education could be affected. They can reduce roadside hazards, protect the character of religious sites and limit students’ exposure to alcohol outlets. The administration used these licensing records to reject claims that shops were opening everywhere.

The administration’s stated reasoning was that regulated, lower-alcohol drinks could reduce dependence on narcotics and drugs. The possible mechanism is substitution: people might choose a controlled, lower-strength product instead of a more dangerous or unregulated substance. Licensing could also let authorities monitor sellers, venues and compliance more closely. The article presents this as the government’s argument, not as proof that the policy would achieve it.

The proposed policy also aimed to strengthen regulation and support tourism-led economic activity. It would have expanded retail outlets from two to 20. However, local representatives criticised the move, and the administration later withdrew it after public feedback. The old policy was restored instead.

Alcohol regulation can create other public-health risks if availability grows. These include alcohol dependence, poisoning, impaired driving, violence and longer-term illness. Lower alcohol content does not remove those risks. Effective regulation therefore needs limits, licensing checks and enforcement, while governments must weigh any claimed reduction in narcotic use against possible alcohol-related harm.