Consensus on who qualifies as domicile of Ladakh after stakeholders meet in Delhi
The High Powered Committee (HPC), constituted by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in January 2023 to address the issues and concerns of the people of Ladakh, convened in New Delhi on Tuesday.
The key concern raised during the meeting was taking forward discussions on the issue of 'domicile certificates' to Ladakh residents with a view to safeguarding job rights for locals.
Sajjad Kargili, who is part of the HPC, said the committee has 'reached consensus' that 'to qualify as a domicile of Ladakh, a citizen must show continuous residence from 2019 with a 15-year prospective.' However, the decision, as per those present in the meeting, will be sent for a legal review before taking shape as policy.
This is the HPC's third meeting this year. Representatives of the Ladakh Apex Body (LAB) and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) that form part of the 15-member committee led by Minister of State, Home, Nityanand Rai, met on February 19, and a sub-committee was convened on February 24.
The demand for a domicile provision, like for J&K, was first discussed in February this year. 'Ladakh Apex Body and KDA pushed for a 30-year domicile — MHA agreed to review its legal aspect,' Kargili said. Meanwhile, the next meeting of the HPC to discuss the Public Service Commission (PSC) is scheduled for next month.
Representatives from Ladakh had earlier told the Centre that on the lines of the High Court for J&K and Ladakh, the PSC should also have been joint; or alternatively, the Union Territory of Ladakh should be given a separate PSC.
Underlining the 'no one in Ladakh has been appointed to a single gazetted post over the last six years, since Ladakh was carved out as a UT from the former state of J&K, KDA's Kargili said, 'There's an immense sense of disappointment across Ladakh, because of a lack of a Public Service Commission. The needle has not moved on implementing any safeguards on the ground.'
The LAB and KDA have been working with the MHA, raising four main demands — statehood for Ladakh, safeguards under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, reservation in jobs for the youth of Ladakh, and creation of separate parliamentary constituencies for the two parts of the region.
In March last year, the talks between the Centre and the Ladakh groups had reached an impasse, with members of the committee claiming that the ministry was refusing to engage on core matters of statehood and protections under the Sixth Schedule for Ladakh
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
SC refuses to entertain plea challenging ‘push backs' from Assam to Bangladesh
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a petition challenging alleged deportations to Bangladesh of people other than 63 individuals identified as foreigners in Assam and directed the petitioner to approach the high court. 'You take your recourse to approach the Gauhati high court. 63 persons are being deported. You go to the high court,' said a bench of justices Sanjay Karol and SC Sharma, as it heard a student group's petition. The petition annexed press clippings showing people other than the 63 were being picked up and deported to Bangladesh. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who represented the petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union (ABMSU), said the 63 were declared foreigners after the external affairs ministry and Bangladesh confirmed their nationality for deportations. 'The action of deportation is based on a pending order,' he said, referring to a February 4 Supreme Court order asking the Union and the Assam governments to deport the foreigners at an Assam detention centre by expediting the process of verification of their nationality with the external affairs ministry and Bangladesh. The court also scheduled for next week the hearing of a habeas corpus plea of a son seeking the whereabouts of his mother, claiming police picked her up for deportation to Bangladesh. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the petitioner, said the alleged arrest was directly in violation of the DK Basu guidelines of the Supreme Court on arrests. 'They simply come and pick her up, and she is thrown out. She was out on bail by the order of this court since December 28, 2019.' Sibal cited the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Versus Union of India case. He added that the court directed the release of detainees in the foreigners camp in Assam, who had completed over three years in detention, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner's mother, Monowara Bera, was among those detainees granted bail. The court said it would tag this matter with a pending plea. 'We do not know if she is in the country anymore.' Sibal said that the petitioner has approached the court to know her whereabouts. 'Let the state file a counter, as we do not know where she is. They need to respond where she is.' The court issued a notice to the Assam government after the petitioner said that his mother was detained at Dhubri police station since May 24, and he has no information whether she was deported. ABMSU has cited similar instances of deportation, citing newspaper reports. It said retired school teacher Kahirul Islam, Abu Bakkar Siddik, and Akbar Ali were allegedly 'pushed back' into Bangladesh without due process. The ABMSU's petition said the instances reflect a growing pattern of Assam Police and administration's deportations through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards the Constitution and the Supreme Court envisage. The petition said the 'push back' policy was being implemented in the border districts of Dhubri, South Salmara, and Goalpara. 'This is not only legally indefensible, but also threatens to render stateless numerous Indian citizens, especially those from poor and marginalised communities who were either declared foreigners ex parte or have no access to legal aid to challenge their status.' The petition sought a stay on the deportations of people other than those on the list of 63 foreigners and a direction to the state and Union government to place the record of the process before the Supreme Court.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea over deportation drive in Assam, asks petitioner to approach High Court
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea which alleged that the Assam government has reportedly launched a "sweeping" drive to detain and deport persons suspected to be foreigners without nationality verification or exhaustion of legal remedies. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma told the petitioner to approach the Gauhati High Court in the matter. "Why are you not going to the Gauhati High Court?" the bench asked senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, who appeared for petitioner All BTC Minority Students Union. Hegde said the plea was based on an order passed by the apex court earlier. "Please go to the Gauhati High Court," the bench observed. Live Events Hegde said the petitioner would withdraw the plea to take appropriate recourse before the high court. The bench allowed him to withdraw the plea. The plea, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, referred to a February 4 order of the top court which, while dealing with a separate petition, had directed Assam to initiate the process of deportation of 63 declared foreign nationals, whose nationality was known, within two weeks. "Pursuant to the said order (of February 4)... the state of Assam has reportedly launched a sweeping and indiscriminate drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners, even in the absence of foreigners tribunal declarations, nationality verification, or exhaustion of legal remedies," the plea claimed. It referred to news reports, including one about a retired school teacher who was allegedly " pushed back " into Bangladesh . "These instances reflect a growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution of India or this court," it claimed. "The 'push back' policy, as implemented, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by deporting individuals without due process, thereby denying them the opportunity to contest their deportation and infringing upon their right to life and personal liberty," the plea claimed. It alleged that the indiscriminate application of deportation directives, coupled with absence of proper identification, verification and notice mechanisms, has resulted in a situation where Indian citizens were being wrongfully incarcerated and threatened with removal to foreign territories without lawful basis. The plea sought a direction that no person shall be deported pursuant to the February 4 order without a prior reasoned declaration by the foreigners tribunal, without adequate opportunity of appeal or review and verification of nationality by the Ministry of External Affairs. It also sought a declaration that the "push back" policy adopted by Assam was violative of Articles 14 ( equality before law ) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and contrary to binding judicial precedents.
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
SC Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Assam's Indiscriminate Deportations
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea filed by All B.T.C. Minority Students' Union (ABMSU) raising concerns over Assam's government's 'indiscriminate' drive to detain and deport individuals suspected to be foreigners. A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma suggested that the petitioner organisation approach the Gauhati High Court for appropriate relief. 'Please go to the Gauhati High Court. We are dismissing this (petition),' the apex court said. The writ petition filed by ABMSU, a social and students' organisation working in Assam's Bodoland, questioned the growing pattern of deportations conducted by the Assam Police and administrative machinery through informal 'push back' mechanisms, without any judicial oversight or adherence to the safeguards envisaged by the Constitution or the top court. 'This policy of 'push back'-- being executed in border districts like Dhubri, South Salmara, and Goalpara -- is not only legally indefensible, but also threatens to render stateless numerous Indian citizens, especially those from poor and marginalised communities who were either declared foreigners ex parte or have no access to legal aid to challenge their status,' said the petition filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed. It added that such actions are directly contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21, and 22 of the Constitution, and violate binding judicial precedents laid down by the Supreme Court, including the judgment in 'Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955' case. 'Despite these safeguards, individuals are being detained and deported without communication of Foreigners Tribunal orders, without nationality verification by the Ministry of External Affairs, and in many cases, without even being informed of their right to seek review or appeal,' contended the petition. It sought a declaration that deportation without due process, including judicial declaration, MEA verification, and exhaustion of remedies, is unconstitutional and sought remedial steps through the NHRC and legal services authorities to protect the rights of affected individuals.
