"Ladakh's Autonomy Talks Tied to Land and Water Security"
Sixth Schedule
Constitutional provision under Article 244(2) creating Autonomous District Councils in tribal areas.
Article 371(K)
Proposed special constitutional provision reportedly being considered for Ladakh's governance.
Ladakh's push for stronger constitutional safeguards has entered a new phase, with the Centre now proposing a fresh provision, Article 371(K), alongside a revised Union Territory-level governance structure. This follows the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which split the erstwhile state under Article 3 into two Union Territories, leaving Ladakh without a legislature and without the representative voice it earlier had through the J&K assembly. Since then, Ladakh's civil society and political groups have pressed for inclusion under the Sixth Schedule, which operates through Article 244(2) and provides Autonomous District Councils with legislative, judicial and administrative powers, currently limited to tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.
The demand for control over land and governance in Ladakh has deep historical roots. In 1834, the Sikh Empire under Maharaja Ranjit Singh extended its control over Ladakh through a military campaign. After Ranjit Singh's death and the First Anglo-Sikh War, the Treaty of Amritsar (1846) transferred Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh to Raja Gulab Singh, founding the Dogra princely state. Land in Ladakh has since been governed by rules framed in that era, including Ailan No. 38, a Dogra-period regulation on the cultivation and ownership of barren land known as nautor. A recent move to cap how much of this land an individual may hold has become one of the sharpest points of local anger, seen by many as a route for outside investment rather than protection of local interests.
This mirrors a wider constitutional principle already established elsewhere in India. Under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, it is the Gram Sabha, the village-level body, that is empowered to initiate recognition of individual and community forest rights for tribal and forest-dwelling communities. That framework rests on the idea that local, elected bodies, not distant administrations, should decide how land and natural resources are used in ecologically sensitive, community-dependent regions. Ladakh's political leadership is effectively asking for a similar principle: direct elections through separate constituencies, bureaucratic accountability to an elected body, and a freeze on major land decisions until such a body exists.
The Sixth Schedule gives Autonomous District Councils law-making powers over land, forests, and local customs, along with limited judicial authority through village courts, making it far stronger than an ordinary local government. Ladakh already has Autonomous Hill Development Councils for Leh and Kargil, but these lack constitutional entrenchment and can be altered or overridden by ordinary legislation, which is why activists see them as an insufficient substitute for Sixth Schedule status.
Article 371 and its variants (371A to 371J) form a separate constitutional track, granting special provisions to specific states such as Nagaland, Mizoram, and Maharashtra, covering matters from land ownership to legislative procedure. …
Under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, who shall be the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature and extent of individual or community forest rights or both?
'While the national political parties in India favour centralisation, the regional parties are in favour of State autonomy.' Comment.
To what extent, in your opinion, has the decentralisation of power in India changed the governance landscape at the grassroots?
Consider the following statements about the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution:
1.It operates under Article 244(2) of the Constitution.
2.It currently applies to tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.
3.Autonomous District Councils constituted under it have no judicial powers.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Consider the following statements regarding the Indus Waters Treaty (1960):
1.It allocated the eastern rivers, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, to India.
2.It allocated the western rivers, Indus, Jhelum and Chenab, to Pakistan, subject to specified uses by India.
3.The treaty was negotiated with the mediation of the United Nations.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Match List-I (River) with List-II (Country to which it is allocated under the Indus Waters Treaty, 1960) and select the correct answer using the code given below:
List-I
A.Ravi
B.Chenab
C.Sutlej
D.Jhelum
List-II
1.Pakistan
2.India
Under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, which body is empowered to initiate the process of determining individual or community forest rights?
The Treaty of Amritsar (1846) is significant in the constitutional and political history of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh because it:
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account