Yash Khajuria
Leh: Even as the Union Territory (UT) Administration of Ladakh has formally established five new districts in Ladakh—Sham, Nubra, Changthang, Zanskar and Drass—concerns are mounting that repeated Committee exercises and bureaucratic procedures could considerably delay their actual operationalization on the ground.
The new districts, originally notified by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in August 2024, were officially established through a UT Administration order dated April 27, 2026, with headquarters notified and Deputy Commissioners and Superintendents of Police already posted.
While residents across Ladakh welcomed the decision as a major step toward decentralized governance and improved public service delivery, administrative experts and sources familiar with the matter fear that the momentum may now slow down because of the constitution of another Committee to examine issues already studied in detail by the earlier New Districts Committee headed by retired IAS officer Pramod Jain, and had Kachu Isfandyar Khan, Tsering Angchuk and two Deputy Commissioners of Leh and Kargil as members/ ex officio members.
Sources pointed out that the UT Administration, after receiving the Jain Committee report, had already constituted an Internal Committee headed by Secretary to Government, General Administration Department on April 1, 2025 to examine and study the recommendations made by the New Districts Committee headed by retired IAS officer, Pramod Jain. The Internal Committee was reportedly tasked with scrutinizing the report and suggesting modalities for implementation. This Committee has already finished the task assigned to it.
The Jain Committee had earlier submitted its detailed report to former Lieutenant Governor Brig. (Retd.) B.D. Mishra on March 3, 2025 after extensively studying all aspects related to operationalization of the new districts, touring all the new districts and consulting all Officers, leaders and stakeholders .
According to officials familiar with the matter, the Report comprehensively addressed district boundaries, departmental structures, staffing patterns, infrastructure requirements, residential facilities, civic amenities and phased implementation mechanisms required to make the new districts fully functional.
Sources claim that the Report even covered long-term planning elements such as bus stands, fire stations, stadia and township development for the newly designated district headquarters, many of which presently exist only as villages in official classification.
However, instead of directly implementing the recommendations which included advertisements for recruitment etc., the UT Administration has now constituted another Committee under the Divisional Commissioner-cum-Secretary Revenue to examine staffing patterns, office establishment, redistribution of assets, and reorganization of subdivisions, tehsils, niabats, girdawar circles and patwar halqas.
Critics argue that the latest Committee may effectively become “an action replay” of the Jain Committee’s work as well as that of the Committee headed by Secretary GAD. Pertinently, the Internal Committee have already examined the NDC report over the past year. Moreover, reorganisation of Tehsils, niabats and voluminous and time-consuming exercise, which may not be possible in a short timeframe.
Observers say this fresh exercise has triggered apprehensions that the Administration may be reopening issues already examined both by the Jain Committee and subsequently by the Internal Committee constituted in April 2025. “The concern is not about consultation, but about repeated processing of the same issues instead of execution,” an official said anonymously.
Particular concern is being expressed over the latest committee’s mandate to revisit reorganization and rationalization of subdivisions, tehsils, niabats, girdawar circles and patwar halqas in conformity with the new district boundaries. Administrative experts believe this is an extremely elaborate exercise involving revenue, policing and governance jurisdictions that may consume substantial time, if undertaken afresh.
“The mandate of the Jain Commission itself was to advise the Administration on how to operationalize the new districts. Reopening the same questions after more than a year may only prolong the process,” a senior official said on condition of anonymity.
Several opinion makers have voiced similar concerns.
Questions are also being raised over why the Jain Committee report has still not been made public despite more than a year having passed since its submission. Stakeholders argue that public disclosure of the report would enhance transparency and help build confidence regarding the roadmap ahead.
Analysts feel that procedural delays could weaken the political and administrative goodwill generated by the creation of the new districts, especially among residents of far-flung areas who expected immediate governance benefits.
To fast-track the process, experts have suggested that the Administration should now move beyond committee-based reviews and establish a dedicated high-level Project Implementation Unit (PIU) directly under the Lieutenant Governor’s Secretariat.
Such a PIU, they say, should be empowered to execute the already available recommendations in a phased and time-bound manner with regular monitoring at the highest level.
Administrative observers have also suggested immediate release of the Jain Committee report, sanctioning of essential district-level posts, temporary functioning arrangements for departments and delegation of financial powers to newly posted Deputy Commissioners to accelerate implementation.
Observers believe that unless implementation begins in earnest, the strategic, administrative and developmental advantages envisioned through the creation of the five districts may remain stuck in procedural delays and bureaucratic red tape.
