Ladakh to get unique elected body with legislative powers, but no statehood: Chief Secretary

Ladakh will not be granted statehood or a Union Territory with a legislature. Instead, a "sui generis" model — a unique body that does not exist anywhere else in the country — is being crafted for the region, and it will hold legislative, executive and financial powers, Ladakh Chief Secretary Ashish Kundra said on Thursday (September 10, 2026).

Asked whether the head of the proposed elected body would be called a Chief Minister, and whether the assurance amounted to restoring statehood, Mr. Kundra said: "Ladakh was never a State. It was part of J&K, and later it became a UT. Aspiration of the people is to have legislative, executive and financial powers. An agreement has been reached with the leadership here; a sui generis model, which does not exist anywhere in the country, will be crafted for Ladakh, where a legislative body will be created. It is not going to be Statehood for sure or a UT with legislature, but it is some other body which will have these powers. The nomenclature of it is yet to be finalised, that is why discussions are on."

Ladakh was carved out of Jammu and Kashmir and became a Union Territory without a legislature on October 31, 2019, under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, following the revocation of Article 370. Since then, political and social organisations in Leh and Kargil have pressed for statehood or protection under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, along with safeguards on land, employment and language.

Mr. Kundra said that at a meeting with the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) on September 9, the proposed structure of a Union Territory-level body under Article 371 of the Constitution was discussed. Members expressed consensus on having a "direct election through constituencies" for the proposed body, he said. Article 371 of the Constitution contains special provisions for certain States, including Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Sikkim, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa and Karnataka.

The members have been given a list of eight to nine questions to clear doubts and to examine the structural relationship and distribution of powers between the existing hill councils and the proposed UT-level body, he said. The next round of discussions is expected in October.

Emphasising that constitutional safeguards require a detailed and established legal and parliamentary process, the Chief Secretary said any constitutional amendment needs broad political consensus, consultation and parliamentary consideration. He said the process would move forward through dialogue and consensus, and that no framework would be imposed on Ladakh without due consultation with stakeholders.

Members of the LAB and the KDA said they were "disappointed" with the talks, stating that the UT administration under Lieutenant Governor Vinai Saxena and the Ministry were not on the same page. Cherring Dorjay Lakruk of the LAB said that if officials wanted them to answer questions, the agenda should have been shared beforehand. "They are asking us what will be the name of the elected body, what will the CM be called? They should have sent the agenda in advance. We cannot answer these questions instantly; they involve legal questions," Mr. Lakruk said.

Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who was part of the LAB delegation that met Ministry officials on September 9, said "no concrete progress" had been made on their key demands, and cautioned that protests would resume if assurances were not provided within a week. At a press conference in Delhi, he said that under a decision reached with Ministry officials on May 22, the Home Ministry was to submit a draft proposal and move forward on the "non-negotiable" demands at the next meeting. He added that the meeting was more than a "waste of time and money", and that the government should not compel them to protest.

Ladakh Member of Parliament Mohmad Haneefa said they had been "struggling for constitutional safeguards for Ladakh for the past six years", adding that the "Home Minister and IB are sincere about finding a solution". He said: "MHA is making lots of efforts to finalise a political solution, but it appears that the UT administration is trying to sabotage the efforts. They are taking key decisions on land, etc., unilaterally. MHA and UT administration should act on the same page. Till the time the draft is submitted by MHA, no major administrative or bureaucratic decisions should be taken by the L-G."

The next round of talks, expected in October, will test whether the proposed framework can address the demands raised by the region's representatives.