General Studies Paper – II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice, and International Relations.

Context

Traditionally, Ladakh was an integral part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the year 2019, through the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, Ladakh was established as a separate Union Territory (UT) without a legislature. While this historic administrative change fulfilled Ladakh's long-standing demand for a distinct identity, on the other hand, it also created deep insecurity among the local population regarding losing their demographics, land, employment, and unique cultural identity. In the present times, this issue has become even more serious as the civil society and local organizations of Ladakh have attracted nationwide attention by demanding democratic representation to protect their identity and autonomy. This crisis is not merely of an administrative arrangement, but is a sensitive subject of balancing local aspirations and central control in a border region.

What is Article 371?

Part 21 of the Indian Constitution deals with temporary, transitional, and special provisions. Article 371 (A to J), which falls under this part, provides special autonomy and constitutional safeguards to various states of the country (especially the northeastern states and certain other regions) for the protection of their unique cultural, social, and tribal identity. Under this:

• The intervention of Parliament in local traditions, customary laws, land transfer, and religious and social matters is limited.
• The Governors or local bodies of the concerned states receive special legislative and administrative powers.
• This Article reflects the flexible and 'asymmetric' nature of Indian federalism, where special provisions are given to specific states for the preservation of diversity.

Why is it in Discussion?

Recently, the fifth meeting of the sub-committee of the High-Powered Committee (HPC) constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) was held on May 22 (2026). After the official minutes of this meeting were made public, this issue has once again come to the center of national discussion. Its key points are as follows:

• Special Sui Generis Model: The Central Government has proposed adopting a unique and special autonomous governance model for Ladakh, which will be adapted to the conditions of Ladakh.
• Union Territory (UT) Level Elected Body: The Ministry of Home Affairs has clarified that to empower Ladakh, a UT-level elected institution/body will be constituted, which will possess its own executive, financial, and legislative powers.
• Proposal of Article 371: In the meeting, an agreement was reached to develop a special constitutional framework on the lines of Article 371 (A to J) to provide safeguards to Ladakh.

What is the Issue?

• August 2019: With the abrogation of Article 370, Ladakh was made a Union Territory without a legislature. Initially, it was welcomed, but soon local people felt that total administrative control had passed into the hands of the bureaucracy (Lieutenant Governor) and their political voice had diminished.
• Rise of Organizations: Two major organizations emerged to protect the autonomy of Ladakh 'Leh Apex Body' (LAB) from the Leh region and 'Kargil Democratic Alliance' (KDA) from the Kargil region. These two together formed a joint front for the shared demands of Ladakh.
• Four Major Demands: Both organizations started an agitation primarily based on four demands:
  • To grant full Statehood to Ladakh.
  • To grant tribal area status under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
  • Reservation in jobs for local youth (constitution of Ladakh Administrative & Police Service).
  • Expansion of seats for Ladakh in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
• Recent Deadlock and Talks: Following long-drawn protests and hunger strikes, the Central Government constituted the High-Powered Committee. The present situation is that civil society still stands firm on its core demands, while the Central Government has proposed the path of a 'UT-level empowered elected body' and Article 371 as an alternative to Statehood. This also includes the demand to withdraw cases registered during the protest incident of September 24, 2025.

What is the Sixth Schedule and its Criteria?

The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution under Articles 244(2) and 275(1) provides for the formation of Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) in the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram.

• Provisions: These councils possess extensive powers to make laws, collect revenue, and dispense justice at the local level regarding land, forests, water, agriculture, village councils, and health.
• Criteria for Granting Status: To include any region in the Sixth Schedule, the following standards are traditionally looked at:
  • A clear preponderance of tribal population in the region.
  • Geographical remoteness and distinct demographics of the area.
  • A unique cultural and social structure that requires protection.
  • The threat of extinction of local tribal practices due to modern administrative structures.

Note: About 97% of Ladakh's population is tribal, which is why local organizations are strongly demanding this status.

Constitutional Provisions

The main constitutional provisions related to this entire dispute and resolution are as follows:

• Article 239A / 239AA: Related to the creation of a legislative assembly or elected administrative structures in Union Territories on the lines of Puducherry and Delhi.
• Article 244: Related to the administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas (Fifth and Sixth Schedules).
• Article 371: Provision for special development boards and cultural safeguards for specific regions of various states.
• Article 3: Empowers Parliament to alter the boundaries, name, or administrative format of any state or union territory.

Impact of Recent News

• Political Clarity: The public release of the meeting minutes by the Ministry of Home Affairs has brought clarity to the Center's stance, which will reduce the ongoing political uncertainty in Ladakh to some extent.

• Strengthening Asymmetric Federalism: The discussion of a new 'sui generis' model under Article 371 will further strengthen the federal system that accommodates India's regional diversities.
• Mixed Reaction at the Local Level: While on one hand, the proposal of an elected body guarantees administrative participation to the local people, on the other hand, a possibility of partial dissatisfaction may remain among groups demanding full Statehood and the Sixth Schedule.

Analysis

The current geo-political landscape of Ladakh (sensitive borders touching China and Pakistan) demands that internal stability and the trust of the local public be the topmost priority here. The 'special self-governance model' proposed by the Central Government is an attempt to establish a practical middle path between giving a democratic voice to local aspirations and the interests of national security.

The Way Forward

• Inclusive Drafting: While drafting the executive, legislative, and financial rights of the proposed UT-level elected body, representatives from LAB and KDA must be actively involved.

• Harmony in Three-Tier Governance: There should be a clear division of powers between the new autonomous body, the existing Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDC - Leh and Kargil), and Panchayati Raj Institutions so that no administrative conflict occurs.
• Cultural and Demographic Guarantee: Even if the Sixth Schedule is not granted, the new law being formed under Article 371 must make it mandatory to provide 100% protection to the natives of Ladakh in land ownership and local jobs.

Conclusion

Ladakh is not just a geographical piece of land, but an extremely vital guardian of India's strategic security and cultural diversity. A permanent solution to this continuous debate of full Statehood and local security is possible not through harsh administrative decisions alone, but only through mutual trust and transparent dialogue. The Central Government's 'special self-governance framework' is a solid step in the right direction, provided it can instill constitutional confidence in the future generations of Ladakh to keep their land, employment, and distinct cultural identity intact.

General Studies Paper – II: Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice, and International Relations.

Context

Traditionally, Ladakh was an integral part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the year 2019, through the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, Ladakh was established as a separate Union Territory (UT) without a legislature. While this historic administrative change fulfilled Ladakh's long-standing demand for a distinct identity, on the other hand, it also created deep insecurity among the local population regarding losing their demographics, land, employment, and unique cultural identity. In the present times, this issue has become even more serious as the civil society and local organizations of Ladakh have attracted nationwide attention by demanding democratic representation to protect their identity and autonomy. This crisis is not merely of an administrative arrangement, but is a sensitive subject of balancing local aspirations and central control in a border region.

What is Article 371?

Part 21 of the Indian Constitution deals with temporary, transitional, and special provisions. Article 371 (A to J), which falls under this part, provides special autonomy and constitutional safeguards to various states of the country (especially the northeastern states and certain other regions) for the protection of their unique cultural, social, and tribal identity. Under this:

• The intervention of Parliament in local traditions, customary laws, land transfer, and religious and social matters is limited.
• The Governors or local bodies of the concerned states receive special legislative and administrative powers.
• This Article reflects the flexible and 'asymmetric' nature of Indian federalism, where special provisions are given to specific states for the preservation of diversity.

Why is it in Discussion?

Recently, the fifth meeting of the sub-committee of the High-Powered Committee (HPC) constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) was held on May 22 (2026). After the official minutes of this meeting were made public, this issue has once again come to the center of national discussion. Its key points are as follows:

• Special Sui Generis Model: The Central Government has proposed adopting a unique and special autonomous governance model for Ladakh, which will be adapted to the conditions of Ladakh.
• Union Territory (UT) Level Elected Body: The Ministry of Home Affairs has clarified that to empower Ladakh, a UT-level elected institution/body will be constituted, which will possess its own executive, financial, and legislative powers.
• Proposal of Article 371: In the meeting, an agreement was reached to develop a special constitutional framework on the lines of Article 371 (A to J) to provide safeguards to Ladakh.

What is the Issue?

• August 2019: With the abrogation of Article 370, Ladakh was made a Union Territory without a legislature. Initially, it was welcomed, but soon local people felt that total administrative control had passed into the hands of the bureaucracy (Lieutenant Governor) and their political voice had diminished.
• Rise of Organizations: Two major organizations emerged to protect the autonomy of Ladakh 'Leh Apex Body' (LAB) from the Leh region and 'Kargil Democratic Alliance' (KDA) from the Kargil region. These two together formed a joint front for the shared demands of Ladakh.
• Four Major Demands: Both organizations started an agitation primarily based on four demands:
  • To grant full Statehood to Ladakh.
  • To grant tribal area status under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
  • Reservation in jobs for local youth (constitution of Ladakh Administrative & Police Service).
  • Expansion of seats for Ladakh in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
• Recent Deadlock and Talks: Following long-drawn protests and hunger strikes, the Central Government constituted the High-Powered Committee. The present situation is that civil society still stands firm on its core demands, while the Central Government has proposed the path of a 'UT-level empowered elected body' and Article 371 as an alternative to Statehood. This also includes the demand to withdraw cases registered during the protest incident of September 24, 2025.

What is the Sixth Schedule and its Criteria?

The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution under Articles 244(2) and 275(1) provides for the formation of Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) in the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram.

• Provisions: These councils possess extensive powers to make laws, collect revenue, and dispense justice at the local level regarding land, forests, water, agriculture, village councils, and health.
• Criteria for Granting Status: To include any region in the Sixth Schedule, the following standards are traditionally looked at:
  • A clear preponderance of tribal population in the region.
  • Geographical remoteness and distinct demographics of the area.
  • A unique cultural and social structure that requires protection.
  • The threat of extinction of local tribal practices due to modern administrative structures.

Note: About 97% of Ladakh's population is tribal, which is why local organizations are strongly demanding this status.

Constitutional Provisions

The main constitutional provisions related to this entire dispute and resolution are as follows:

• Article 239A / 239AA: Related to the creation of a legislative assembly or elected administrative structures in Union Territories on the lines of Puducherry and Delhi.
• Article 244: Related to the administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas (Fifth and Sixth Schedules).
• Article 371: Provision for special development boards and cultural safeguards for specific regions of various states.
• Article 3: Empowers Parliament to alter the boundaries, name, or administrative format of any state or union territory.

Impact of Recent News

• Political Clarity: The public release of the meeting minutes by the Ministry of Home Affairs has brought clarity to the Center's stance, which will reduce the ongoing political uncertainty in Ladakh to some extent.

• Strengthening Asymmetric Federalism: The discussion of a new 'sui generis' model under Article 371 will further strengthen the federal system that accommodates India's regional diversities.
• Mixed Reaction at the Local Level: While on one hand, the proposal of an elected body guarantees administrative participation to the local people, on the other hand, a possibility of partial dissatisfaction may remain among groups demanding full Statehood and the Sixth Schedule.

Analysis

The current geo-political landscape of Ladakh (sensitive borders touching China and Pakistan) demands that internal stability and the trust of the local public be the topmost priority here. The 'special self-governance model' proposed by the Central Government is an attempt to establish a practical middle path between giving a democratic voice to local aspirations and the interests of national security.

The Way Forward

• Inclusive Drafting: While drafting the executive, legislative, and financial rights of the proposed UT-level elected body, representatives from LAB and KDA must be actively involved.

• Harmony in Three-Tier Governance: There should be a clear division of powers between the new autonomous body, the existing Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDC - Leh and Kargil), and Panchayati Raj Institutions so that no administrative conflict occurs.
• Cultural and Demographic Guarantee: Even if the Sixth Schedule is not granted, the new law being formed under Article 371 must make it mandatory to provide 100% protection to the natives of Ladakh in land ownership and local jobs.

Conclusion

Ladakh is not just a geographical piece of land, but an extremely vital guardian of India's strategic security and cultural diversity. A permanent solution to this continuous debate of full Statehood and local security is possible not through harsh administrative decisions alone, but only through mutual trust and transparent dialogue. The Central Government's 'special self-governance framework' is a solid step in the right direction, provided it can instill constitutional confidence in the future generations of Ladakh to keep their land, employment, and distinct cultural identity intact.

Context

It has been a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Traditionally, the judicial process relies entirely on human intellect, legal understanding, rationality, and established statutory precedents. In this era of technological advancement, the entry of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the judiciary, like in every other sphere of life, began as a supportive tool. The core context is that technology should be used to make justice swift and accessible, not to replace human intellect and judicial accountability. Currently, the increasing role of AI in legal research and finding case laws has created a new crisis, termed as the 'artificial manufacturing of justice,' and this fundamental context is being linked to the recent judicial crisis.

What is the Artificial Manufacturing of Justice?

'Artificial manufacturing of justice' refers to that distorted situation where court decisions, arguments, or judicial conclusions are based not on actual law and human reasoning, but on facts generated or fabricated by AI. When lawyers or judges inadvertently or carelessly start determining justice based on 'hallucinated' and completely fictional legal citations, case laws, or precedents generated by AI, treating them as genuine, it is called 'manufacturing justice.' This is not real justice, but an illusion crafted by a machine, which threatens the entire credibility of the justice system.

Why is it in the News?

This topic has become the center of discussion currently because the Supreme Court of India has taken an extremely strict stance, setting aside the orders of two major tribunals in an insolvency case.

• The Incident: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), while adjudicating a case, relied completely on fictional and AI-generated legal citations.
• Appellate Oversight: Following this, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) also overlooked this serious human and technical lapse during the hearing of the appeal.
• Supreme Court Intervention: A bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside both orders. Earlier on February 27, the same bench had taken cognizance of a lower court relying on similar fictional AI case laws and considered it severe.

What is the Core Issue?

This entire matter has the following serious and multi-dimensional aspects that cannot be ignored:

• AI Hallucination: AI models (such as LLMs) sometimes present legal cases or decisions that never actually occurred, making them look entirely real. This is called 'AI Hallucination.'
• Misconduct of Advocates: Presenting AI-generated material directly before the court as a 'true precedent' to win a case, without verifying it, is a violation of professional conduct by lawyers.
• Lapse in Judges' Duty: Lower courts and tribunals directly relying on the arguments and citations presented by lawyers without verifying their authenticity is a major negligence in their judicial obligation.
• Severe Miscarriage of Justice: If an innocent person is punished or a company is liquidated based on fictional and false laws, it will completely shatter the credibility of the country's legal system.

AI and Justice: The Interconnection

The relationship between AI and the justice system needs to be understood through a balanced perspective:

• AI as a Supportive Tool: AI can be an excellent "supportive tool" in courts for data management, digitization of case files, translation of legal documents, and accelerating research speed. It is capable of improving judicial efficiency.
• What AI Cannot Do: AI can never replace independent human reasoning, judicial intellect, and professional accountability. Justice is not merely a mathematical algorithm; it encompasses human empathy, societal conditions, and ethical values, which are not possible in a machine.

Guidelines and Directives of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has issued extremely stringent and historic directives in this regard:

• Comparison with the Bhopal Gas Tragedy: The Supreme Court compared the use of AI hallucinations in court proceedings to 'Methyl Isocyanate' (the toxic gas of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy) and stated that this technology could prove to be "invisible, insidious, and catastrophic by the time anyone notices."
• Category of Offense and Misconduct: The court clarified that presenting fabricated, machine-generated decisions in court amounts to "professional misconduct" for lawyers and a "grave dereliction of duty" for judges. It will be treated as 'judicial misconduct' rather than a mere error in decision-making.
• Void in the Eyes of Law: The Supreme Court made it clear that any decision influenced even in part by false or hallucinated AI content will be considered "no decision at all in the eyes of the law."
• Directive to BCI: The court ordered the Bar Council of India (BCI) to constitute a dedicated committee to frame strict rules and disciplinary actions against lawyers who cite unverified AI content.

Rules for AI Use in Courts, 2026

To tackle this technological threat, a new draft has been prepared, the key points of which are as follows:

• Complete Prohibition on Core Judicial Functions: These rules completely prohibit the use of AI in core tasks related to formulating judicial outcomes.
• Prohibited Areas:
  1. Adjudication, i.e., writing the final judgment.
  2. The process of determining sentences.
  3. Deciding eligibility for bail.
  4. Evaluating the credibility of witnesses or parties to the lawsuits.
• Public Discourse: This draft is currently open for public consultation and suggestions to make it more practical.

Judicial Decisions in AI: Constitutional and Legal Challenges

• Article 14 (Equality before Law): The bias and data contamination inherent in AI systems can affect the right to equality before the law.

• Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty): The right to a mandatory 'fair, just, and reasonable procedure' under this article can be hindered due to the 'black box' (opaque working methodology) of AI.
• Principles of Natural Justice: Principles like Audi Alteram Partem (the right of both sides to be heard) and Nemo Judex (no one can be a judge in their own case) make it clear that justice must ultimately be subject to human intellect.
• Rule of Law: Judicial decisions must be based on established precedents and verified legal sources, not on potential misleading material generated by AI.
• Constitutional Morality: Ensuring transparency and accountability in decisions is the core spirit of the Constitution, thus the use of AI is justified only as a supportive tool.

Impacts and Concerns

If this unregulated use of AI is not stopped, it will have the following serious impacts:

• Existential Crisis: As experts fear, humanity and our legal system face an existential crisis due to AI disruption, where the boundary between truth and falsehood is blurring.
• Known Unknown: This threat of AI is a 'known unknown' crisis, which everyone knows is growing, but no one knows the ultimate limit of its damage and its social implications.
• Dangerous Social Consequences: The combination of human stupidity (failing to verify) and the intentionally misleading design of AI can manipulate the justice system and create unrest and chaos in society.

Analysis

Technology must always be the handmaid of human consciousness, not its mistress. The blind imitation of AI in the judiciary is giving rise to "artificial and flawed justice" in the name of "swift justice." The strict stance of the Supreme Court makes it clear that 'truth' is paramount in the legal field, and machine hallucination can never be allowed to become a substitute for judicial intellect.

Way Forward

• Mandatory Human Oversight: Any legal document, case law, or research prepared by AI must be mandatorily verified by lawyers and judicial clerks using primary sources (government gazettes or official law reports).

• Digital Literacy and Training: Judges and lawyers must be technically trained regarding the use of AI, its limitations, and the dangers of 'AI hallucination' by the Bar Council and judicial academies.
• Provision for Strict Punishment: The draft rules should be implemented swiftly, and strict penal provisions, such as the suspension of licenses of lawyers who present unverified AI citations, must be put in place to ensure accountability.

Conclusion

In brief, Artificial Intelligence can prove to be an excellent servant for enhancing the productivity and administrative capacity of courts, but it can never be allowed to sit on the judge's chair. In the words of the Supreme Court of India, "Justice must not only be done and seen to be done; it must also not be hallucinated." There is an urgent need for the prudent and regulated use of AI to keep judicial integrity and human trust intact.