Why Ladakh’s plan for 7 hill councils has triggered a political debate

The Ladakh administration’s decision to constitute Autonomous Hill Development Councils (AHDCs) in each of the Union Territory’s seven districts has reopened a debate over how political power should be distributed in the region.

What has the Ladakh Administration announced?

• The Ladakh administration has announced the formation of an Autonomous Hill Development Council in each of the Union Territory’s seven districts.
• Earlier, such councils existed only in Leh and Kargil.
• The decision follows the creation of five new districts—Drass, Sham, Nubra, Changthang and Zanskar.
• The new councils aim to strengthen democratic decentralisation, grassroots governance and local participation.
• The Centre has broadly agreed to create a Union Territory-level representative body under a customised framework based on Article 371.
• Section 3 of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Act allows the government to constitute a council in every district through notification.

Why are Ladakh’s civil society groups opposing the move?

• The ABL and KDA support decentralisation but oppose the division of political authority among seven councils.
• They fear that stronger district councils may weaken the proposed Ladakh-level representative body under Article 371.
• Civil society leaders argue that the new body could be left without meaningful legislative, executive, financial or administrative powers.
• They also question the creation of new councils when the existing councils are allegedly losing authority.

Why has the announcement triggered distrust?

• Trust between the Centre and Ladakh’s civil society has declined since Ladakh became a Union Territory without a legislature in 2019.
• Delays in providing Sixth Schedule-like safeguards or an Article 371 framework have increased frustration.
• The 2025 Leh violence, Sonam Wangchuk’s detention and controversial political remarks further damaged relations.
• Disputes over new districts, official meeting records and seven hill councils have created fears that administrative decisions may shape Ladakh’s future political structure.

What powers do the hill councils have?

• The councils prepare district plans, budgets and development programmes.
• They implement development schemes and function as district planning and development boards.
• They manage land vested in them and can collect certain local taxes.

How functional are they in practice?

• Their role has weakened since Ladakh became a Union Territory.
• Major decisions have shifted to the Lieutenant Governor’s Secretariat and departmental secretaries.
• Council recommendations, especially on land, are often ignored or delayed.
• Council staff are increasingly used by the UT administration, while council budgets have reportedly declined.
• Elected representatives describe the existing councils as largely ineffective or “virtually defunct.”
• They argue that existing councils should first be empowered before increasing their number from two to seven.

Comparison of Autonomous Councils

Aspect	LAHDCs, Ladakh	Sixth Schedule Councils	Manipur Hill Councils
Legal status	Statutory bodies	Constitutional bodies	Statutory bodies
Powers	Mainly district planning, development and land-related functions	Legislative and limited judicial powers over land, forests, village administration and customary practices	Limited local administrative and developmental powers
Autonomy	Dependent on the Union Territory administration for finance and implementation	Comparatively greater constitutional, financial and administrative autonomy	Dependent on the state government for finance and administration
Overall position	Stronger than ordinary district bodies but weaker than Sixth Schedule councils	Most empowered autonomous councils	Broadly comparable to LAHDC