Explore the Ladakh statehood agitation, Sixth Schedule demands, and Sonam Wangchuk detention under the National Security Act, highlighting the balance between right to protest and national security.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Right to Protest, guaranteed under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, is central to democracy, allowing citizens to express dissent and demand accountability. However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, and national security. The tension between these principles is evident in Ladakh’s statehood movement.
After the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, Ladakh became a Union Territory without legislative powers. Over time, concerns about representation, tribal rights, and ecological preservation have fueled demands for statehood and Sixth Schedule protections. While protests reflect democratic aspirations, Ladakh’s geostrategic location bordering China and Pakistan makes the region highly sensitive.
Thus, the movement raises a constitutional dilemma: how to uphold the right to protest while safeguarding national security in a frontier region. The violent clashes in Ladakh, which left four dead and over 80 injured, have highlighted the difficult balance between democratic freedoms and security imperatives in a strategically sensitive region.
Ladakh’s Statehood Protest
The recent unrest in Ladakh has brought to the surface long-standing demands for statehood, Sixth Schedule recognition, and local autonomy, highlighting the deep tension between regional aspirations and national security. What began as peaceful mobilisations has now turned into a pressing constitutional and political question, one that requires sensitive handling through dialogue and inclusive governance.
Significance of Ladakh:
Ladakh is not just a remote frontier; it holds immense geopolitical, cultural, and environmental importance for India. Its strategic location, sharing borders with both China and Pakistan, makes it a critical buffer for India’s sovereignty and defence. At the same time, Ladakh’s fragile ecosystem, pristine landscapes, and cultural heritage give it unique economic and tourism potential, alongside opportunities in renewable energy and agriculture. This blend of strategic vulnerability and developmental promise makes Ladakh central to both India’s security and its sustainable growth agenda.
Arguments for Statehood and Sixth Schedule Inclusion:
The case for statehood rests on the demand for democratic representation. Since becoming a Union Territory in 2019, Ladakh has lacked a legislature, leaving its people without an effective political voice. Over 97% of Ladakh’s population belongs to the Scheduled Tribes, and many fear demographic dilution and loss of cultural identity after the abrogation of Article 370. Inclusion under the Sixth Schedule could provide constitutional safeguards over land, resources, and customs, while also ensuring sustainable development in a fragile ecology. Rising unemployment, the absence of a Public Service Commission, and concerns over local recruitment further add urgency to the demand for autonomy and protection.
Arguments Against Statehood and Sixth Schedule Inclusion:
On the other hand, critics caution that granting Ladakh statehood or Sixth Schedule status could complicate security coordination in a highly sensitive border region. Maintaining it as a Union Territory reinforces India’s sovereignty narrative against China and Pakistan. Legally, the Sixth Schedule is designed for the Northeast, meaning its extension to Ladakh would require a constitutional amendment. Others argue that Ladakh already receives substantial central funding and expanded reservations, and that overregulation under the Sixth Schedule might restrict investment and infrastructure growth. There is also a fear of creating a precedent that could encourage similar demands from other regions.
The path ahead lies in balancing democratic aspirations with national security concerns. Strengthening the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDCs), introducing a tailored legislative framework, or creating a hybrid model of governance could provide autonomy without undermining strategic control. Dialogue between local bodies such as the Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance with the central government remains essential. At the same time, safeguards for Ladakh’s cultural heritage and fragile environment must be institutionalised, ensuring that development does not come at the cost of identity or ecology.
Sonam Wangchuk and the Government Response
Following the violence, Wangchuk ended his hunger strike, urging youth to maintain peace, warning that violent actions would damage the movement for statehood and Sixth Schedule protections. Despite his calls for calm, authorities invoked the National Security Act (NSA), arrested him, and revoked the FCRA license of his NGO, alleging violations and “provocative” speeches referencing global youth movements.
The Union Home Ministry stated that, except for earlier incidents, the situation was under control by 4 pm and cautioned against spreading inflammatory or outdated videos. Opposition leaders, including Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti, criticized the Centre for ignoring the democratic aspirations of Ladakhis, while BJP leaders blamed local Congress figures for instigating unrest.
Legal Framework: Right to Protest vs. National Security
Right to Protest:
Indian courts have consistently upheld the right to peaceful assembly and expression, recognizing it as essential to democracy (Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India, 2018). Hunger strikes, rallies, and shutdowns, when conducted peacefully, are protected forms of dissent.
Reasonable Restrictions:
However, Article 19(2) allows the State to impose restrictions in the interest of public order, decency, morality, and security. In strategic border areas like Ladakh, violent protests pose heightened risks. The Supreme Court has ruled in multiple cases, including Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020), that demonstrations cannot obstruct essential services or compromise law and order.
National Security Considerations
Ladakh’s location on disputed borders with China and Pakistan amplifies the national security stakes. Violent mobilizations risk destabilizing sensitive areas, prompting authorities to invoke laws like the NSA to maintain peace and strategic stability.
What is the Sixth Schedule?
The Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution outlines the governance of tribal areas in the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. It empowers local communities to play a significant role in the administration of these regions. The youth in Ladakh are advocating for their region to be governed under the protections of the Sixth Schedule.
According to this Schedule, an autonomous district can be subdivided by the governor if there are multiple Scheduled Tribes present. Each autonomous district is entitled to a District Council with no more than 30 members.
The governor is allowed to nominate up to four members, while the remaining members are elected through adult suffrage.
Furthermore, each autonomous region will have its own Regional Council.
Under the Sixth Schedule, in an autonomous district with Regional Councils, the District Council has powers limited to those delegated by the Regional Council, alongside the powers granted by the Schedule for specific areas.
The Schedule also details the legislative powers of the District Councils and Regional Councils regarding the administration of justice in these autonomous regions.
It specifies the delegation of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to the Regional and District Councils, as well as certain courts and officers for the adjudication of specific suits, cases, and offenses.
The Governor can dissolve a district or regional council based on recommendations from a Commission.
Can the Sixth Schedule be amended?
The Parliament has the authority to amend the Sixth Schedule through legislation, which may include additions, variations, or repeal of its provisions.
The law states,
“When the Schedule is so amended, any reference to this Schedule in the Constitution shall be construed as a reference to the amended version.”
Detention of Sonam Wangchuk under the NSA
Gitanjali Angmo, wife of activist Sonam Wangchuk, has appealed to the Supreme Court against his detention under the NSA following violent protests in Leh over demands for statehood and Sixth Schedule protections. Wangchuk, a key voice for Ladakh’s autonomy, ended his hunger strike after clashes left four dead and over 80 injured.
Angmo criticized the government for targeting her husband in a politically motivated witch-hunt, questioning allegations linking him to Pakistan. Authorities also revoked his NGO’s FCRA license, citing alleged violations.
The Sixth Schedule grants autonomous powers to tribal councils, including legislative, administrative, and judicial authority, which activists seek for Ladakh to protect local governance, culture, and resources. Wangchuk’s detention underscores the tension between the right to protest and national security in this strategically sensitive region.
Sonam Wangchuk:
Sonam Wangchuk is a prominent engineer, innovator, and climate activist from Ladakh, widely known for his work on sustainable education and environmental conservation. He founded the Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL), which focuses on improving education in remote Himalayan regions, and has been a vocal advocate for renewable energy, ecological preservation, and local empowerment.
In recent years, Sonam Wangchuk has become a prominent leader in Ladakh’s statehood movement and the push for Sixth Schedule protections, advocating for local governance, tribal rights, and resource management. He has led hunger strikes and protests and participated in international forums on climate and development, making him both a respected activist and a controversial figure amid allegations of anti-national activity.
National Security Act (NSA):
The National Security Act (NSA), 1980, is a preventive detention law allowing the Central or State government to detain individuals to protect national security or maintain public order. Under Article 22 of the Constitution, preventive detention can be used to stop potential threats or disruptions. The maximum detention period is 12 months, and the Act also provides for a National Security Council to advise the Prime Minister on security matters.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Ladakh’s Statehood Movement
