Is A Customised Article 371 The Centre's Answer To Ladakh's Demands?

Nearly seven years after Ladakh became a Union Territory, the Centre has proposed a new constitutional and administrative framework that could reshape governance in the region. Alongside plans to establish Autonomous Hill Development Councils in each of Ladakh's seven districts, the government has also proposed a Union Territory-level body under what officials describe as a "customised Article 371 framework".

The proposal comes after prolonged demands from Ladakh's civil society groups for constitutional safeguards following the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. While the framework has not yet been formally introduced through legislation, it signals the Centre's attempt to provide greater autonomy without extending Sixth Schedule status.

What's In The Centre's Ladakh Proposal? 

Union Territory Chief Secretary Ashish Kundra announced that every district in Ladakh will have its own Autonomous Hill Development Council (AHDC). The move follows the creation of five new districts in April 2026, expanding Ladakh from two districts—Leh and Kargil—to seven with the addition of Sham, Nubra, Changthang, Zanskar and Drass.

Under the existing Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Act, a council can be constituted for every district once notified by the government. Necessary amendments to the law and the delimitation of constituencies will precede elections to the new councils.

Beyond the district councils, the Centre has proposed a UT-level institution intended to coordinate governance across Ladakh.

What is a 'customised Article 371 framework'?

According to reports, the proposed Union Territory-level body will be created under a customised constitutional arrangement inspired by Article 371. Unlike the existing Article 371 provisions, which apply to specific states such as Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and others with varying safeguards, the Ladakh model is expected to be uniquely designed for the Union Territory.

Officials have said the body will possess legislative, executive, financial and administrative powers, while drawing on features of different constitutional arrangements already operating in other parts of India. They have also claimed that the proposed model has no direct parallel elsewhere in the country.

How is it different from Sixth Schedule?

The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution provides autonomous district councils with constitutional protection in certain tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura. These councils enjoy legislative powers over specified subjects, including land, forests, local customs and village administration.

Ladakh's civil society groups, including the Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance, have long sought inclusion under the Sixth Schedule to safeguard tribal identity, land ownership and employment rights.

The proposed Article 371 framework appears to offer constitutional safeguards through a different route rather than extending Sixth Schedule provisions. However, the exact scope of these protections will become clear only after the legal framework is made public.

How Much Authority Will The New Body Have?  

According to reports, the proposed body will exercise legislative, executive, financial and administrative functions. However, its precise relationship with the Lieutenant Governor, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the district hill councils remains undefined.

Its powers, composition and decision-making authority will ultimately depend on the constitutional amendment or legislation that creates it.

Does this address Ladakh's long-standing demands?

The proposal marks the strongest indication yet that the Centre is willing to provide constitutional safeguards tailored to Ladakh. Activist Sonam Wangchuk, who led protests seeking greater autonomy, had earlier said discussions between the government, the Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance had reached an "in-principle understanding" on such safeguards.

Whether the customised Article 371 model satisfies demands for stronger legislative autonomy, protection of land and jobs, and greater local participation will depend on the final constitutional provisions and how much authority the proposed institutions ultimately receive.