Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Centre's recent notification of five comprehensive regulations for Ladakh marks a significant legal watershed in the region's post-Article 370 governance framework. These regulations, notified on 2-3 June, 2025, represent the first systematic attempt to address the unique administrative, cultural, and demographic concerns of Ladakh through tailored legal instruments. However, they also highlight the constitutional limitations inherent in governing a Union Territory without a legislature, raising fundamental questions about federal structure, tribal rights, and regional autonomy in India's constitutional framework. 

Has the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Left Ladakh in a Constitutional Limbo? 

• The legal genesis of Ladakh's current predicament traces back to the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, which fundamentally altered the constitutional status of the region. Unlike Jammu & Kashmir, which retained legislative powers as a Union Territory, Ladakh was constituted as a UT without a legislature, placing it under direct Central administration through Article 240 of the Constitution. 
• This constitutional arrangement created a governance vacuum that has persisted for over five years. The region, with over 90% Scheduled Tribe population, found itself without the protective constitutional mechanisms typically afforded to tribal-majority areas. 
• The absence of domicile laws, job reservations, and cultural protections created legitimate concerns about demographic changes, employment opportunities, and cultural preservation. 
• The demand for Sixth Schedule inclusion gained legal and political momentum precisely because it offers constitutional guarantees rather than executive discretion. The Sixth Schedule provides Autonomous District Councils with legislative powers over land, forests, taxation, and customary law - protections that executive regulations cannot replicate. 

Do Ladakh’s New Regulations Adequately Protect Local Identity, Representation, and Rights? 

• Domicile Framework and Employment Protection: 
  • The Ladakh Civil Services Decentralization and Recruitment (Amendment) Regulation, 2025, introduces a multi-tiered domicile definition: 
  • 15-year continuous residence requirement. 
  • Educational qualification criteria (7 years study with Class 10/12 examination). 
  • Familial connections through Central Government service or existing domicile status. 
  • This framework attempts to balance legitimate local employment concerns with administrative practicality. However, the 15-year threshold appears relatively liberal compared to similar provisions elsewhere, potentially diluting the protective intent. 
• Enhanced Reservation Matrix: 
  • The Union Territory of Ladakh Reservation (Amendment) Regulation, 2025, establishes an 85% reservation ceiling for SC/ST/OBC categories, excluding the 10% EWS quota. This represents one of the highest reservation percentages in India, reflecting the region's unique demographic composition. 
  • The extension of this reservation framework to professional institutions like medical and engineering colleges is particularly significant, addressing long-standing concerns about educational access for local populations. 
• Linguistic Recognition and Cultural Preservation: 
  • The Ladakh Official Languages Regulation, 2025, provides formal recognition to English, Hindi, Urdu, Bhoti, and Purgi as official languages, while mandating institutional support for Shina, Brokskat, Balti, and Ladakhi. This multilingual approach acknowledges the region's cultural diversity but lacks implementation mechanisms for practical usage in governance and judiciary. 
• Gender Representation Enhancement: 
  • The amendment to LAHDC Act mandating one-third women's reservation through rotation addresses gender representation concerns, though the councils remain administrative rather than legislative bodies. 

Is Ladakh’s New Governance Framework Constitutionally Robust or Administratively Insecure? 

• Constitutional Fragility: 
  • The most fundamental limitation lies in the regulations' constitutional foundation. Made under Article 240, these provisions lack the permanence and protection afforded by constitutional amendments. They remain vulnerable to executive modification or withdrawal, creating legal uncertainty for long-term planning and investment. 
• Land Rights Vacuum: 
  • The absence of land ownership restrictions represents the most significant lacuna in the regulatory framework. Without land protection mechanisms, the other safeguards risk being rendered ineffective by demographic and economic pressures. This omission is particularly concerning given Ladakh's strategic location and tourism potential. 
• Legislative Deficit: 
  • The continuation of Ladakh's status as a UT without legislature means local populations lack democratic representation in law-making processes. The LAHDCs, despite enhanced women's representation, remain administrative bodies without legislative authority over crucial areas like land use, environmental protection, and resource management. 
• Implementation Ambiguity: 
  • Several regulations lack clear implementation roadmaps. The language recognition provisions, while symbolically important, provide no framework for practical integration into governance, education, or judicial processes. 

Does the Regulatory Framework for Ladakh Under Constitutional Equity in India's Federal Structure? 

• The regulatory framework creates an asymmetrical federal structure within the former Jammu & Kashmir state. While J&K UT retains legislative powers, domicile laws, and land ownership restrictions, Ladakh operates under a more constrained constitutional arrangement despite similar strategic importance and cultural sensitivity. 
• This asymmetry raises questions about constitutional equity and the criteria for determining which regions merit legislative autonomy. The differential treatment appears to reflect political rather than constitutional logic, potentially setting concerning precedents for future reorganizations. 

Conclusion 

The Centre’s regulations for Ladakh offer a pragmatic starting point but stop short of addressing the core constitutional demands related to autonomy, land rights, and democratic representation. While they may ease immediate concerns, lasting resolution requires a deeper constitutional engagement that ensures meaningful federal accommodation and tribal protections. The coming dialogues with the Ministry of Home Affairs will be pivotal in determining whether this is a step toward genuine reform or merely a temporary administrative fix.