Ladakh to get a Unique Elected Body under Article 371K

Why in News?

The Union Ministry of Home Affairs has discussed a directly elected Union Territory-level body for Ladakh, through a proposed special constitutional provision referred to as Article 371K.

The administration described the proposal as a sui generis (unique) governance model. It would involve legislative, executive and financial powers, while Ladakh would remain a UT without being placed in the conventional category of a UT with a legislature.

However, local representatives expressed dissatisfaction because a detailed draft and precise allocation of powers had not been provided. The arrangement remains under negotiation and has not been enacted yet.

What has been proposed?

The central government has agreed to grant Constitutional safeguards under Article 371 to Ladakh. A unique (sui generis) governance model for Ladakh via a new Article 371(K) has been proposed, introducing a directly elected Union Territory-level body with specific legislative powers. Its broad features are:

• Directly elected representatives: The proposed UT-level body would be elected through territorial constituencies, giving residents a direct role in choosing representatives responsible for Ladakh-wide matters. Constituency boundaries, membership and electoral arrangements remain to be worked out.
• Legislative powers over specified subjects: The body would be empowered to make laws concerning land, culture, language, forests, environment and natural resources. 
• Legislative, executive and financial authority: The administration has described an institution combining law-making, implementation and financial powers. However, its actual control over officials, development planning, expenditure and revenue has not been settled in a detailed draft.
• Coexistence with existing hill councils: The institution would operate at the UT level, alongside the Leh and Kargil Autonomous Hill Development Councils. Discussions are examining how responsibilities and resources would be divided among these bodies to avoid overlapping authority.
• Distinct constitutional arrangement: The proposal would confer neither statehood nor the conventional status of a UT with a legislature. Instead, a specially designed constitutional body would exercise defined powers while Ladakh retains its UT status. Its name and the designation of its elected head remain undecided. 
• Unresolved control over police and bureaucracy: Local representatives have sought authority over the police and administrative machinery. The Centre has agreed to examine these demands, but no firm commitment has been reported. The Lieutenant Governor’s powers and relationship with the elected leadership also require clarification.

Why Is Ladakh seeking Constitutional Safeguards?

• Gap in democratic representation: Ladakh became a Union Territory without a legislature on October 31, 2019, under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. Local representatives consequently seek a UT-wide elected institution with meaningful authority over policy and administration.
• Protection of land and livelihoods: Communities fear that inadequately regulated land transfers, commercial investment and infrastructure projects could affect agricultural land, grazing areas and traditional livelihoods, including Changpa pastoralism.
• Preservation of tribal and cultural identity: Ladakh has a predominantly tribal population with distinct languages, customary practices and cultural traditions. In 2019, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes recommended its inclusion under the Sixth Schedule, citing the need to protect tribal interests and cultural heritage.
• Ecological vulnerability: Its cold-desert environment, limited water resources and fragile mountain ecosystems require development decisions that account for carrying capacity and local knowledge.
• Limited reach of existing hill councils: The Leh and Kargil hill councils operate under the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Act, 1997. They are statutory institutions, rather than Sixth Schedule councils, and do not substitute for UT-wide legislative government.

What would Article 371K mean?

• Articles 371 and 371A-371J are separate constitutional provisions within Article 371. They provide differentiated arrangements for particular States under Part XXI. For example:
  • Article 371A (Nagaland): Protects specified customary practices and land-and-resource interests.
  • Article 371G (Mizoram): Provides safeguards concerning customary practices and ownership and transfer of land.
• A proposed Article 371K would require a constitutional amendment. Its protections cannot be assumed to match those of existing provisions until the draft is available.

How does it differ from the Sixth Schedule?

• The Sixth Schedule, read with Article 244(2), currently applies to specified tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. It establishes autonomous district and regional councils with constitutionally defined powers over specified local matters, including land, customary practices and certain administrative and judicial functions.
• The Ladakh proposal instead envisages a directly elected UT-level institution with specially designed powers. Its relationship with district-level councils would need explicit definition.

However, neither arrangement (Article 371K and Sixth Schedule) automatically confers statehood. Extending the Sixth Schedule to Ladakh would also require constitutional changes.

A detailed draft must specify the institutional structure and safeguards, followed by the necessary constitutional amendment required. The central issue is whether the new institution will exercise effective self-government or remain dependent on the Lieutenant Governor and Union administration.

UPSC PYQ 2015:

Q. The provisions in Fifth Schedule and Sixth Schedule in the Constitution of India are made in order to: 

(a)    protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes

(b)    determine the boundaries between States

(c)    determine the powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats

(d)    protect the interests of all the border States

Answer: (a)