Ladakh’s Leadership Stands Firm; Presents Full Charter of Non‑Negotiable Demands in Leh Meeting

Srinagar:The Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) on Wednesday presented a charter of “non-negotiable” demands to the Centre at an important informal meeting held in Leh with Ladakh Chief Secretary Ashish Kundra and senior officials of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), including the Joint Secretary responsible for Ladakh affairs.

This meeting continued the ongoing dialogue between Ladakh’s representative bodies and the MHA, following the understanding reached during the May 22 discussions in New Delhi. In recent months, senior MHA officials—such as Additional Secretary (Home) Prashant Lokhande, who earlier led extensive negotiations with LAB and KDA—have also visited Leh to accelerate the process of finalising Ladakh’s future constitutional and administrative framework. These visits reflect a shift toward holding consultations within Ladakh itself, signalling a more region‑centric approach by the Centre.

During Wednesday’s meeting, the LAB and KDA jointly submitted a detailed charter of “non‑negotiable” demands, reiterating their insistence on constitutional safeguards and the restoration of a democratically elected legislature for Ladakh. KDA spokesperson Sajjad Kargili stated that the meeting concluded with both groups clearly outlining their key demands and the constitutional architecture they expect the Government of India to adopt. He emphasised that the delegations remain firmly committed to protecting the democratic, constitutional, and political rights of Ladakhis.

Alongside the main charter, they also submitted a resolution demanding the unconditional withdrawal of all cases filed against individuals affected by the September 24, 2025 incidents in Leh, as well as dignified and adequate compensation for the victims and their families.

The LAB delegation included its chairman Chering Dorjay Lakruk, along with Sonam Wangchuk and Dorje Stanzin, while the KDA was represented by senior leaders such as Asgar Ali Karbalai and Sajjad Kargili.

The LAB and KDA explained that Ladakh must adopt a sui‑generis democratic model—tailor‑made for its unique geography, culture, and administrative needs—while keeping full statehood as the ultimate goal. They acknowledged that Ladakh currently lacks the revenue base required for immediate statehood, but argued that a constitutionally empowered democratic setup can and must be established without delay. They then presented their detailed list of non‑negotiable features.

Their first demand is the creation of a fully empowered Ladakh Legislative Assembly headed by a Chief Minister and supported by a council of nine ministers. Members must be elected from properly delimited constituencies through a constitutionally recognised mechanism. The Assembly’s powers must draw from List II (State List) and List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule under Article 246, supplemented where necessary by the Union Territories Act, 1963. Crucially, the Lieutenant Governor must act on the aid and advice of the elected government to avoid administrative conflicts witnessed in other Union Territories.

The second major demand concerns financial autonomy. The Assembly must have constitutionally protected control over taxation, budget formulation, appropriation, expenditure, borrowing, and public funds. Ladakh must have its own Consolidated Fund and Contingency Fund, with provisions adapted from Articles 198–209 to ensure robust financial procedures and legislative oversight.

The third demand is for a constitutionally empowered legislature with clearly defined composition, territorial representation, and legislative, executive, and financial powers. The LAB and KDA insist that Ladakh’s democratic structure must draw safeguards from constitutional principles applied in states with special provisions, such as Articles 371A (Nagaland), 371F (Sikkim), and 371G (Mizoram), to protect Ladakh’s cultural identity, ecological fragility, and demographic balance.

The fourth demand places Home Affairs, Public Order, and Police substantially under the democratic control of the elected government and the Ladakh Legislative Assembly. This demand draws upon constitutional principles reflected in Articles 162, 163, and 166(3), and references models from Puducherry and the erstwhile UT of Mizoram, where democratic control over policing and public order was more substantial.

The fifth demand calls for a separate Ladakh Public Service Commission, along with distinct Ladakh Administrative and Police Services and Ladakh‑specific cadres. This requires amendments to Section 93(2) of the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, and Article 315, ensuring that Ladakh’s public services are constitutionally anchored and aligned with the proposed UT‑level legislature.

Finally, the LAB and KDA reiterated their unwavering commitment to safeguarding Ladakh’s democratic, constitutional, and political rights. They stressed that the people of Ladakh must not be left in a state of administrative uncertainty and that the Centre must honour the commitments made during earlier rounds of dialogue. Their unified charter represents the “most comprehensive and coordinated demand” for democratic restoration in Ladakh since the region became a Union Territory in August 2019.