The Kargil Democratic Alliance has rejected the Union home ministry’s draft governance framework for Ladakh, saying the October 15 document places the region under Article 240 instead of the stronger model both sides had reportedly agreed to in May. The alliance has warned of protests and shutdowns in response.
Ladakh has had no elected legislature since August 2019, when Article 370 was abrogated and the former state of Jammu and Kashmir was split into two Union territories. Residents’ representative bodies set out four demands by 2022, including statehood, constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule, separate Lok Sabha seats for Leh and Kargil, and a separate recruitment process and Public Service Commission for the region.
A meeting on May 22 reportedly produced an understanding for a “sui generis” Union Territory structure with legislative, executive and financial powers strong enough to bring the bureaucracy, including the chief secretary, under an elected body’s control, modelled on a proposed new Article 371-K. Minutes of that meeting were signed on July 6 by home ministry officials and leaders of the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) and Apex Body Leh, according to Scroll.in, citing The Indian Express and The New Indian Express.
What changed in the draft
KDA co-convener Asgar Karbalai said the home ministry’s October 15 draft was placed under Article 240, a constitutional provision that lets the President make regulations for certain Union territories, rather than the Article 371-K model discussed in May. Fellow co-convener Sajjad Kargili called the draft “an attack on the rights of the region’s people.”
Ladakh’s Lok Sabha MP, Mohammad Hanifa, said the home ministry’s current position goes against the understanding reached earlier with the region’s representatives. The shift from the Article 371-K framework to Article 240 is central to the alliance’s objection, since the two provisions carry very different limits on how much power an elected Ladakh body would actually hold against the lieutenant governor and the bureaucracy.
Why the gap between the two models matters
The May 22 understanding would have given an elected Ladakh body real legislative, executive and financial authority, extending even to administrative control over the chief secretary’s office. Article 240, by contrast, keeps ultimate rule-making power with the President and, in practice, the lieutenant governor and central bureaucracy, leaving an elected body with a more advisory role.
That gap is why KDA and Apex Body Leh leaders describe the October 15 draft as a reversal rather than a negotiating step forward, even though both sides had been in direct talks as recently as a week before the draft was presented, when a KDA subcommittee met home ministry officials.
What happens next
The KDA has not announced specific protest dates but has said shutdowns and demonstrations are on the table if the home ministry does not revise the draft. Talks between the two sides have stalled, with each blaming the other for the breakdown, Scroll.in reported.
The region has a recent history of the statehood demand turning confrontational. On September 24, 2025, protests tied to the same four-point demand turned violent, leaving four people dead and 50 injured in police firing. That precedent is part of why this round of rejection is being watched closely rather than treated as a routine negotiating setback.
Frequently asked questions
Is Ladakh asking for full statehood?
Statehood is one of four demands set out by 2022, alongside Sixth Schedule constitutional safeguards, separate Lok Sabha seats for Leh and Kargil, and a separate Public Service Commission. The current dispute is narrower: it concerns the governance framework for Ladakh as a Union Territory, not full statehood itself.
What is the difference between Article 240 and the proposed Article 371-K?
Article 240 lets the President make regulations for certain Union territories, keeping rule-making power centred in Delhi and the lieutenant governor’s office. The Article 371-K model discussed in the May 22 talks would have given an elected Ladakh body legislative, executive and financial powers, extending to oversight of the bureaucracy itself.
Has the Centre responded to the rejection?
Scroll.in’s report does not record a fresh home ministry statement responding to the KDA’s rejection, though both sides had been in direct contact as recently as a week before the October 15 draft was presented.
Apex Body Leh, which has led the statehood agitation alongside the KDA since Ladakh became a Union Territory without a legislature, was also party to the May 22 understanding and the July 6 signed minutes. Its continued involvement means the current standoff spans both the Kargil and Leh wings of the movement rather than being confined to one district.
Leave a Reply