Centre Appoints Former SC Judge to Lead Judicial Inquiry into Ladakh Protest Deaths - 2025-10-18

Centre Appoints Former SC Judge to Lead Judicial Inquiry into Ladakh Protest Deaths

New Delhi – The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has appointed former Supreme Court Judge, Justice B.S. Chauhan, to preside over a judicial inquiry into the violent events in Leh, Ladakh, on September 24, 2025. The incident, which occurred amidst protests for statehood, resulted in the deaths of four individuals, including a Kargil war veteran, and injuries to over 90 others, creating a significant legal and political flashpoint in the Union Territory.

The MHA's order, issued on October 17, 2025, tasks the one-person commission with investigating the circumstances that led to the "serious law and order situation, the police action and the resultant unfortunate deaths." The establishment of this high-level inquiry is seen as a crucial step by the Centre to address a key demand from Ladakhi leadership and potentially pave the way for a resumption of stalled political dialogue.

In its official notification, the Department of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh Affairs underscored the gravity of the situation, stating, “it is imperative to conduct an inquiry into the said incident by a Retired Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.” This move signals the government's intent to ensure an impartial and thorough examination of the events that have strained relations between the administration and the local populace.

Justice Chauhan will be supported by a dedicated team, including Mohan Singh Parihar, a retired District and Sessions Judge, as Judicial Secretary, and Tushar Anand, an IAS officer, as Administrative Secretary. The Ladakh administration has been instructed to provide all necessary logistical support to the commission.

---

The Legal Framework: BNS Charges and the Inquiry's Mandate

The judicial inquiry will run parallel to an ongoing criminal investigation. The MHA's notification confirms that an FIR (No. 144/2025) has been registered at Leh Police Station. This case invokes numerous provisions of the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the colonial-era Indian Penal Code.

The sections cited in the FIR—including those related to threatening a public servant (Sec. 189), rioting (Sec. 190, 191), abetment (Sec. 109), grievous hurt (Sec. 118, 121), and waging war against the Government of India (Sec. 125)—indicate the seriousness with which the authorities have viewed the protests. The application of these new BNS provisions in such a high-profile case will be meticulously analyzed by the legal community, serving as an early test of their interpretation and implementation.

The primary legal challenge for Justice Chauhan's commission will be to dissect the "police action." The inquiry will likely scrutinize standard operating procedures (SOPs) for crowd control, the chain of command that authorized the use of force, and whether the force used was proportional to the perceived threat. The commission's findings, while not legally binding in the same way as a court judgment, will carry immense persuasive authority and could form the basis for departmental action, policy reforms, or even provide direction for the ongoing criminal prosecution.

Context: Constitutional Demands and Breakdown of Dialogue

The September 24 violence was not an isolated incident but the culmination of years of growing discontent in Ladakh. Since its separation from Jammu and Kashmir and reconstitution as a Union Territory in 2019, a move initially welcomed by many in Leh, concerns have mounted over the lack of a legislative assembly and the perceived erosion of local autonomy under a centrally-appointed administration.

This discontent has unified the Buddhist-majority Leh and Muslim-majority Kargil regions under a joint platform comprising the Apex Body of Leh (ABL) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA). Their core demands are rooted in constitutional law: 1. Statehood for Ladakh: To establish a legislative assembly and ensure political self-governance. 2. Inclusion in the Sixth Schedule: To provide constitutional safeguards for the region's unique tribal culture, land rights, and fragile ecosystem. 3. Dedicated Public Service Commission and increased parliamentary representation.

Talks between the ABL-KDA and a High-Powered Committee (HPC) established by the MHA collapsed in March 2025 after the Centre reportedly rejected these primary demands. The subsequent escalation of protests, championed by activist and Magsaysay award winner Sonam Wangchuk, led to the tragic events of September 24.

Following the violence, the administration took stringent measures, including the detention of Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA), a move that drew widespread criticism. The ABL and KDA suspended all dialogue, demanding the release of all detainees and a judicial probe as preconditions for returning to the negotiating table.

Legal Implications and the Path Forward

The establishment of the judicial inquiry is a significant conciliatory gesture from the Centre. In its statement, the MHA reiterated its commitment to dialogue, asserting, "We are confident that continuous dialogue will yield the desired results in the near future. The Government stands committed to the aspiration of the people of Ladakh."

For the legal community, several key aspects will be under observation: * Preventive Detention under NSA: The legality and justification for invoking the NSA against Sonam Wangchuk will remain a contentious issue. The proceedings related to his detention will be a focal point for civil liberties advocates and constitutional law experts. * Dual Proceedings: The interplay between the judicial inquiry's findings and the criminal investigation under the BNS will be critical. While the inquiry seeks to establish facts and accountability on an administrative level, the criminal case will determine individual culpability. Evidence and testimony from one forum could significantly impact the other. * Inquiry's Scope and Powers: The effectiveness of the commission will depend on its ability to access evidence, summon witnesses (including government and police officials), and operate without executive interference. Its terms of reference will dictate whether its investigation is limited to the immediate incident or can also examine the administrative failures that led to the breakdown in law and order.

The appointment of a seasoned jurist like Justice Chauhan lends credibility to the process. However, the ultimate success of this initiative will be measured not just by the impartiality of the inquiry's report, but by the government's subsequent actions and its willingness to re-engage in meaningful dialogue on Ladakh's long-standing constitutional and political aspirations. The path to restoring peace in the region now hinges on the twin pillars of justice and political negotiation.