Article 371 has traditionally provided special provisions to certain States. Critically analyse its proposed extension to Ladakh, a Union Territory.

Part XXI of the Constitution uses Article 371 and its sub-clauses (371A–371J) to tailor governance for specific States — Maharashtra-Gujarat development boards, Nagaland's customary safeguards, Andhra Pradesh's regional equity provisions [2]. Reports that a "sui generis" elected body for Ladakh is being crafted under this provision [5] therefore marks a constitutionally novel, and legally untested, turn.

The traditional design of Article 371

• It is a State-specific device: it modifies executive or legislative arrangements within existing States, not the constitutional category of a territory [2].
• Ladakh, by contrast, is a UT without legislature since 31 October 2019 under the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, comprising Leh and Kargil, administered through the Lieutenant Governor and two Hill Councils [1].

Merits of the proposed extension

• Recognises asymmetric federalism as a legitimate tool — a graded arrangement with legislative, executive and financial powers addresses the region's democratic deficit without disturbing its strategic UT framework.
• Responds to genuine anxieties over land, jobs, language and cultural identity, building on gains already delivered through the High Powered Committee — ST reservation raised from 45% to 84%, one-third women's reservation in Hill Councils, and Bhoti and Purgi as official languages [3].
• Institutionalises an ongoing dialogue the Centre has repeatedly affirmed with the Apex Body Leh and Kargil Democratic Alliance [4].

Critical concerns

• Requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368, needing two-thirds support; extending a State-oriented article to a UT risks category confusion and future litigation [2].
• Nomenclature and powers remain undefined; without Sixth Schedule-type land and resource safeguards, an elected body may prove symbolic while the LG and Parliament retain primacy.
• Consensus deficits persist — the Centre has sought further written clarifications, and civil society questions whether consultation is substantive.

On balance, the proposal is a pragmatic middle path between Statehood and the status quo, provided the safeguards are justiciable rather than declaratory. Clearly enumerated powers, land and employment protections, and a time-bound amendment process would make Ladakh a template for cooperative, identity-sensitive federalism in India's border regions.