"Article 240 regulations offer flexibility but not permanence." Critically examine the Centre's approach to Ladakh's demand for Sixth Schedule status.

Ladakh became a Union Territory without a legislature in 2019. Since then, it has asked for Sixth Schedule protection. The Centre has instead used presidential regulations under Article 240 [3]. These are quick to issue but just as easy to undo.

Strengths of the Centre's approach (flexibility)

• Speed of delivery: The regulations raised ST reservation from 45% to 84%. They gave one-third reservation for women in hill councils, made Bhoti and Purgi official languages and started recruitment for 1,800 posts [2].
• No constitutional amendment needed: The June 2025 rules were issued under Article 240 read with Section 58, J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 [3]. This skipped a long amendment process.
• Strategic caution: Ladakh borders China and Pakistan. Central control protects defence land and infrastructure along the LAC.
• Talks continue: The MHA keeps the High Powered Committee (2023) open for talks with LAB and KDA [4]. The proposed elected UT-level body would also add local representation [1].

Weaknesses (no permanence)

• The Centre can reverse them alone: The Union executive can change or withdraw Article 240 regulations without Parliament. So the gains do not build lasting trust.
• Expert advice set aside: In 2019, the NCST recommended the Sixth Schedule for Ladakh, to share power democratically and protect land [5].
• Final say stays with the Centre: The new body's laws take effect only after the L-G's assent. The delimitation formula (population alone, or population plus area) is still undecided. This could cause friction between Leh and Kargil [1].
• Trust deficit: Protests in Leh turned violent in September 2025, and restrictions followed [2].

Caveat: the Sixth Schedule is no cure-all

• In the North-East, Autonomous District Councils are short of funds [7]. The pending 125th Amendment Bill, 2019 proposes Finance Commission support for councils and elections run by State Election Commissions [6].

Way forward

• Write the elected body into the Constitution, for example through an Article 371-type provision. Defence and border land would stay with the Centre, while land, jobs and culture would go to the local body.
• Guarantee the body's funds. Set a time limit for the L-G's assent. Agree the delimitation formula in law with both LAB and KDA.

The Centre's approach has delivered quick results but not lasting security. A constitutional guarantee with clearly divided powers would make these gains permanent. It would also balance national security with the constitutional values of federalism and tribal self-governance.