Constitutional Law Comment by Akinchan Aggarwal, Advocate — B.A. (Hons.) Gold Medalist, LL.B., LL.M. (Disputes Resolution), UGC–NET, Ph.D. (pursuing)
On 27 August 2026 the President promulgated a Regulation which every headline in the country reported as "Ladakh gets a High Court Bench."
It does not.
What the Regulation does is create a power — a power for the Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh to appoint a place in Ladakh at which Judges and Division Courts may sit, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor. No Bench has been established. No place has been appointed. The Regulation has not even commenced, because it comes into force only on a date the Administrator of Ladakh appoints by notification in the Official Gazette.
That distinction is not pedantry. The Supreme Court explained it at length eight months ago, in December 2025, and the difference between "a Bench" and "a place of sitting" carries real consequences for territorial jurisdiction, for where a Ladakhi litigant must file, and for who controls the arrangement afterwards.
This comment sets out what was actually promulgated, the unusual constitutional route by which it was made, the sixty-nine-year-old provision it copies almost word for word, and what still has to happen before a judge hears a case in Leh or Kargil.
Contents
- What Was Actually Promulgated
- Three Steps Before a Judge Sits in Ladakh
- Why a Regulation and Not an Act
- Article 240 — and the Gap It Had to Cross
- The Provision It Copies: Section 51, States Reorganisation Act, 1956
- "Bench" or "Place of Sitting"? — Puranik and Nimbalkar
- The Clause That Settles the Question
- The Problem the Regulation Is Answering
- Could a Court Have Ordered This?
- What Remains Undecided
- Frequently Asked Questions
1. What Was Actually Promulgated
| Instrument | The Union Territory of Ladakh (Sitting of Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in Ladakh) Regulation, 2026, reported as Regulation No. 10 of 2026 |
|---|---|
| Promulgated by | The President of India, Droupadi Murmu |
| Date | 27 August 2026, published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary the same day |
| Issued through | Ministry of Law and Justice |
| Source of power | Article 240 of the Constitution, read with section 58(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 |
| Extent | The whole of the Union territory of Ladakh |
| Commencement | On a date to be appointed by the Administrator of the Union territory of Ladakh by notification in the Official Gazette |
| Cabinet approval | 20 August 2026 |
The operative provisions, as reported, are three:
- The principal seat is untouched. The principal seat of the common High Court continues to be where it was before the Regulation.
- A power to appoint a place of sitting. The Judges and Division Courts of the High Court may sit at a place in Ladakh as may be appointed by the Chief Justice, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor.
- A power to send cases back. The Chief Justice may, in his discretion, direct that any case or class of cases arising in the Union territory of Ladakh be heard at Srinagar or Jammu, as the case may be.
Read those three together and the shape of the instrument is clear. It is an enabling Regulation. It confers a discretion; it does not exercise one.
2. Three Steps Before a Judge Sits in Ladakh
Between the Regulation and a hearing at Leh or Kargil stand three separate acts, and only the first has occurred.
| Step | Who does it | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Promulgation of the Regulation | The President | Done — 27 August 2026 |
| Notification appointing the date of commencement | The Administrator of the UT of Ladakh, in the Official Gazette | Awaited |
| Appointment of the place of sitting | The Chief Justice, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor | Awaited |
Only when all three are complete does anything change for a litigant. Until then the position is exactly as it was on 26 August: a person in Leh or Kargil seeking a writ or an appeal goes to Srinagar or Jammu.
This matters for how the development should be reported and, more importantly, for how it should be advised on. A client asking today whether he can file his writ petition at Leh must be told no — and told that the answer depends on a gazette notification and an administrative decision of the Chief Justice, neither of which has a stated timeline.
3. Why a Regulation and Not an Act
A reader's natural question is why Parliament did not simply legislate. The answer lies in what the Union territory of Ladakh is.
Section 58(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 provides that the Union territory of Ladakh "will be administered by the President acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through a Lieutenant Governor to be appointed by him under article 239." Ladakh has no Legislative Assembly. It is a Union territory without a legislature of its own.
Section 58(2) then supplies the machinery:
"The President may make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of the Union territory of Ladakh under article 240 of the Constitution of India."
That is the route taken here. And it is worth being precise about what such a Regulation is, because it is routinely confused with an Ordinance.
| Ordinance — Article 123 | Regulation — Article 240 | |
|---|---|---|
| Precondition | Both Houses, or either House, not in session | None — session is irrelevant |
| Duration | Lapses six weeks after Parliament reassembles unless approved | Does not lapse. It remains in force until repealed or amended |
| Approval | Must be laid before Parliament | No approval by Parliament required for its continuance |
| Force | Same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, while it lasts | By Article 240(2), may repeal or amend any Act of Parliament applicable to the territory, and has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament |
An Article 240 Regulation is therefore a considerably more durable instrument than an Ordinance. It is not emergency legislation. It is the ordinary legislative method for a Union territory that has no legislature of its own — and it carries the force of a statute indefinitely.
4. Article 240 — and the Gap It Had to Cross
Here is a point that no report of the Regulation has made, and it is the most interesting constitutional feature of the instrument.
Article 240(1) does not name Ladakh.
The Article empowers the President to make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of certain Union territories, and it lists them: the Andaman and Nicobar Islands; Lakshadweep; Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu; and Puducherry, with the two provisos about Puducherry's legislature. Goa was in the list until it became a State. Neither Ladakh nor Jammu and Kashmir appears there.
So how does an Article 240 power reach Ladakh at all?
Through section 58(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 — an ordinary Act of Parliament, enacted under Article 3, which declares that the President may make regulations for Ladakh "under article 240". The Constitution's own list was not amended; a statute was used to extend the constitutional power to a territory the Article does not name.
Is that permissible? The orthodox justification is Article 4, which allows a law made under Articles 2 and 3 to contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions as Parliament may deem necessary, and provides that such a law shall not be deemed an amendment of the Constitution for the purposes of Article 368. Reorganisation statutes have long carried provisions of this character. But Article 4 speaks in terms of amendment of the First and Fourth Schedules, and Article 240(1) is in neither — so the extension rests on the "supplemental, incidental and consequential" language rather than on anything more specific.
I raise this as a matter a constitutional lawyer would notice, not as a submission that the Regulation is invalid. No reported challenge has taken the point, the technique is not novel, and the presumption of constitutionality attaches to the 2019 Act as it does to any statute. But anyone teaching Article 240 should know that the list in clause (1) is no longer an exhaustive account of where the power operates.
5. The Provision It Copies: Section 51, States Reorganisation Act, 1956
Set the Regulation beside section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and the drafting becomes immediately legible. Section 51 reads:
51. Principal seat and other places of sitting of High Courts for new States.
(1) The principal seat of the High Court for a new State shall be at such place as the President may, by notified order, appoint.
(2) The President may, after consultation with the Governor of a new State and the Chief Justice of the High Court for that State, by notified order, provide for the establishment of a permanent bench or benches of that High Court at one or more places within the State other than the principal seat of the High Court and for any matters connected therewith.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Judges and division courts of the High Court for a new State may also sit at such other place or places in that State as the Chief Justice may, with the approval of the Governor, appoint.
Now read the Ladakh Regulation's operative clause again: the Judges and Division Courts may sit at a place in Ladakh as may be appointed by the Chief Justice, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor.
That is section 51(3), transposed. The Governor becomes the Lieutenant Governor, because Ladakh is a Union territory administered by the President through an LG under Article 239. Everything else is the same.
What the Regulation conspicuously does not reproduce is section 51(2) — the President's power, after consultation with the Governor and the Chief Justice, to establish a permanent Bench. That omission is the whole point.
6. "Bench" or "Place of Sitting"? — Puranik and Nimbalkar
The difference between the two sub-sections is not a matter of nomenclature, and the Supreme Court has now twice explained why.
State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik (1982)
In State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik, (1982) 3 SCC 519, the Supreme Court drew the line that still governs. A permanent Bench under section 51(2) "necessarily brings about a territorial bifurcation of the High Court", with exclusive jurisdiction over the region assigned to it. An appointment of a place of sitting under section 51(3) brings about no territorial bifurcation at all: the judges sitting there continue to function as members of the same undivided institution, exercising such jurisdiction as the Chief Justice allocates. The Court described the section 51(3) power as lying within the "unquestioned domain of the Chief Justice", subject only to the Governor's approval.
Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar v. State of Maharashtra (2025)
The point was revisited very recently. In Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1460, decided on 18 December 2025 by Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria, the Supreme Court upheld the notification declaring Kolhapur a place of sitting of the Bombay High Court. It held that:
- the power under section 51(3) is an independent and continuing power vested in the Chief Justice to appoint additional places of sitting "for the more convenient transaction of judicial business", subject to the approval of the Governor;
- that power operates independently of section 51(2) and is not constrained by earlier administrative decisions; and
- crucially, permanence does not convert a place of sitting into a Bench. The determinative factors are the absence of territorial bifurcation and the retention of administrative control with the Chief Justice. A place of sitting "remains subject to administrative control, does not confer exclusive territorial jurisdiction", and preserves the jurisdictional unity of the High Court.
Apply that framework to the Ladakh Regulation and the answer is not in doubt. The Regulation's title uses the word "Bench" — but its operative provision is a section 51(3)-type power, vested in the Chief Justice with the Lieutenant Governor's approval, and it contains nothing corresponding to section 51(2). On Puranik and Nimbalkar, what may emerge in Ladakh is a place of sitting, not a permanent Bench: no territorial bifurcation of the High Court, no exclusive jurisdiction over Ladakh, and administrative control retained by the Chief Justice.
7. The Clause That Settles the Question
If any doubt remained, the third operative provision removes it.
The Regulation empowers the Chief Justice, in his discretion, to direct that any case or class of cases arising in the Union territory of Ladakh be heard at Srinagar or Jammu.
That clause is flatly inconsistent with the creation of a permanent Bench. A Bench under section 51(2) takes exclusive jurisdiction over its territory; cases arising there go there, as of right, and cannot be routed away at discretion. A power to redirect Ladakh cases to Srinagar or Jammu is precisely what Nimbalkar identified as the hallmark of a place of sitting — administrative control retained by the Chief Justice, and no exclusive territorial jurisdiction conferred on anyone.
For a practitioner the consequence is concrete and worth stating plainly. Once a place of sitting is appointed, a Ladakh litigant will not acquire a right to have his case heard in Ladakh. He will acquire the possibility of it, subject to whatever the Chief Justice determines by way of allocation of judicial business. Whether that possibility becomes a reliable expectation depends on the roster, the categories of matters assigned, and the frequency of sittings — none of which the Regulation addresses.
8. The Problem the Regulation Is Answering
None of this is a criticism of the decision. The problem it addresses is real, and the numbers are worth recording.
Under section 75(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir is the common High Court for both Union territories, its expenditure apportioned between them in the ratio of population. Since 2019 Ladakh has therefore had a High Court — located entirely outside Ladakh.
The geography does the rest. The High Court sits at Srinagar and Jammu. Ladakh is vast, mountainous, sparsely populated, and for much of the year the road link to the Kashmir valley over the Zoji La is unreliable or closed. A litigant from Leh or Kargil pursuing a writ petition has faced a journey that is not merely expensive but, in winter, sometimes not available at all.
The institutional numbers reported alongside the Cabinet decision are equally telling:
| Indicator | Figure |
|---|---|
| Cases pending, High Court of J&K and Ladakh (as on 30 July 2026) | 44,557 |
| — of which pending over ten years | 6,106 |
| — of which pending over five years | 7,328 |
| Cases pending, district and subordinate courts | 3,65,645 |
| Ladakh sub-divisions with court infrastructure | 5 of 10 |
| Judicial officers in position against sanctioned strength | 10 of 17 |
Those last two rows deserve more attention than they will get. Half of Ladakh's sub-divisions have no court infrastructure, and seven of seventeen sanctioned judicial officer posts are vacant. A place of sitting of the High Court is a valuable thing, but a litigant's first encounter with the justice system is the trial court, not the High Court. If the object is access to justice in Ladakh, the Regulation addresses the apex of the pyramid while the base remains half-built.
9. Could a Court Have Ordered This?
No — and it is worth knowing why, because it explains why the demand took as long as it did.
In Federation of Bar Associations in Karnataka v. Union of India, decided on 24 July 2000 by Justices K.T. Thomas and M.B. Shah, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition under Article 32 seeking the establishment of High Court Benches at places distant from the principal seat. The Court held that:
- no litigant has a fundamental right to have the High Court located within proximate distance of his residence;
- the Chief Justice, having consulted his colleagues, expresses the opinion of the High Court and not merely his personal opinion, and that opinion is entitled to weight;
- multiplying Benches carries costs to State finances and to functional efficiency, given that offices such as the Chief Justice and the Advocate General are singular; and
- distance alone cannot be decisive, and the High Court itself, rather than a court acting by mandamus, is best placed to judge the necessity and feasibility of a Bench.
The establishment of a Bench or a place of sitting is thus an executive and administrative decision, taken by the political executive together with the Chief Justice, not a right enforceable by writ. Whatever one's view of the pace at which Ladakh's demand was met, it was never something a court was going to order.
10. What Remains Undecided
The Regulation is short, and it leaves almost every operational question open. As matters stand, none of the following has been announced:
- Where. Leh or Kargil — or, in time, both. The Regulation speaks of "a place in Ladakh" and leaves the choice to the Chief Justice with the Lieutenant Governor's approval. Given the political sensitivity of the Leh–Kargil balance in Ladakh, this is not a trivial administrative detail.
- When. The commencement date rests with the Administrator's gazette notification, for which no timeline has been stated.
- How many judges, and whether they will sit continuously or on circuit.
- Which matters. Whether all cases arising in Ladakh will be heard there, or only specified categories — the Regulation expressly permits the Chief Justice to send any case or class of cases to Srinagar or Jammu.
- Registry, e-filing and Bar arrangements — a place of sitting requires a functioning registry, listing infrastructure and a local Bar able to appear before it.
Each of these will be settled administratively, and each will matter more to a Ladakhi litigant than the Regulation itself.
11. Frequently Asked Questions
Has Ladakh got a High Court?
No. Ladakh does not have, and under this Regulation will not have, a High Court of its own. Under section 75(1) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh is the common High Court for both Union territories. The Regulation permits that court to sit in Ladakh; it does not create a new one.
Has a Bench been established in Ladakh?
Not in the strict sense. The Regulation empowers the Chief Justice, with the Lieutenant Governor's approval, to appoint a place of sitting in Ladakh. On Puranik and Nimbalkar, a place of sitting is not a permanent Bench: it produces no territorial bifurcation of the High Court, confers no exclusive jurisdiction, and leaves administrative control with the Chief Justice. The Regulation's title uses the word "Bench", but its operative clause is a place-of-sitting power.
Can I file my writ petition at Leh today?
No. The Regulation comes into force only on a date to be appointed by the Administrator of Ladakh by notification in the Official Gazette, and a place of sitting must then be appointed by the Chief Justice with the Lieutenant Governor's approval. Neither has happened. Until both do, matters continue to be filed at Srinagar or Jammu.
What is Article 240 and why was it used?
Article 240 empowers the President to make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of certain Union territories. Ladakh has no Legislative Assembly — under section 58(1) of the 2019 Act it is administered by the President through a Lieutenant Governor appointed under Article 239 — so a Regulation is the ordinary legislative method for it. Note that Ladakh is not named in Article 240(1); the power reaches it through section 58(2) of the 2019 Act, which provides that the President may make regulations for Ladakh under Article 240.
Is a Regulation the same as an Ordinance?
No. An Ordinance under Article 123 requires that Parliament not be in session and lapses six weeks after it reassembles unless approved. An Article 240 Regulation has no such precondition and does not lapse; by Article 240(2) it may repeal or amend an Act of Parliament applicable to the territory and has the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament.
Will all cases from Ladakh now be heard in Ladakh?
Not necessarily. The Regulation expressly permits the Chief Justice, in his discretion, to direct that any case or class of cases arising in Ladakh be heard at Srinagar or Jammu. What is heard in Ladakh will depend on the allocation of judicial business made by the Chief Justice, not on the place where the cause of action arose.
Could the Ladakh Bar have obtained this through a writ petition?
No. In Federation of Bar Associations in Karnataka v. Union of India (2000) the Supreme Court held that no litigant has a fundamental right to a High Court within proximate distance of his residence, that distance alone is not decisive, and that the necessity and feasibility of a Bench is for the High Court and the executive to determine rather than for a court acting by mandamus.
Conclusion
Something real happened on 27 August 2026, and it should not be understated. For the first time since Ladakh became a Union territory in 2019, there is a legal basis for the High Court to sit within its own territory, and that basis is a durable one — a Regulation with the force of an Act of Parliament, which does not lapse.
But it should not be overstated either, and most of the reporting has overstated it. No Bench has been created. The Regulation is enabling legislation in the mould of section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, and what may follow from it is a place of sitting — no territorial bifurcation, no exclusive jurisdiction, administrative control retained by the Chief Justice, and an express power to send Ladakh cases back to Srinagar or Jammu. Two Supreme Court decisions, forty-three years apart, say so.
Whether that becomes meaningful for a litigant in Kargil now turns on three things the Regulation does not decide: a gazette notification, a choice of place, and a roster. And it turns on something the Regulation does not touch at all — that half of Ladakh's sub-divisions still have no court building, and seven of seventeen judicial officer posts are vacant.
A High Court that sits in Leh is worth having. It is not, by itself, access to justice.
Disclaimer: This comment is prepared for educational and professional discussion and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on press reports of the Regulation promulgated on 27 August 2026 and on the sources cited; at the time of writing the author has not examined the authenticated Gazette text, and readers must consult the Regulation as published in the Gazette of India before relying on any proposition stated here. The characterisation of the instrument as conferring a "place of sitting" power rather than establishing a permanent Bench is the author's reading of the reported operative provisions in the light of State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik and Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar v. State of Maharashtra, and is offered as analysis rather than as settled law. Commencement, the place of sitting, and the allocation of judicial business remain to be determined by the authorities named in the Regulation. Constitutional and statutory references should be verified against the enacted texts.
