Ladakh Administration rebuts claims on Excise Policy, urges Sonam Wangchuk to avoid spreading misinformation

LEH, Oct 28: The Union Territory Administration of Ladakh has strongly rejected statements made by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk regarding the alleged expansion of liquor outlets across the region, describing his claims as “false”, “baseless” and “misleading”.

In an official clarification, the administration stated that only one liquor shop is currently operational across the entire Union Territory, contrary to Wangchuk’s allegation that liquor shops were being opened in every street, locality and near educational institutions.

The administration took note of statements made by Wangchuk during a press conference at Ladakh Bhavan in New Delhi on October 22, 2026. During the press conference, Wangchuk alleged that the Lieutenant Governor was acting arbitrarily and claimed that hundreds of women were protesting against what he described as the forced expansion of liquor outlets and bars across Ladakh.

Rejecting these allegations, the administration issued a detailed clarification outlining the decisions taken under the Excise Policy 2026-27 and the subsequent restoration of the previous policy.

According to the administration, the new Excise Policy 2026-27 was notified through S.O. 198 on June 1, 2026. However, following feedback and suggestions from members of the public and social organisations, the Lieutenant Governor rolled back the policy on August 26, 2026, respecting public sentiments.

The administration stated that the proposal to open wine shops under the new policy was also withdrawn, and the auction notice issued in connection with it was cancelled.

Subsequently, the previous Excise Policy 2025-26, notified through S.O. 35 on April 4, 2025, was restored through S.O. 256 dated August 26, 2026, and continues to remain in force.

Under the restored policy, two liquor shops were permitted in Leh, specifically in Ward No. 4 and Ward No. 6. However, the administration clarified that an auction held for Ward No. 6 on October 14, 2026, resulted in one operational wine shop, while no bids were received for Ward No. 4. Consequently, only one liquor shop is currently operational across Ladakh.

The administration said these facts contradict Wangchuk’s claim that liquor availability was being forcibly expanded throughout the region.

Regarding bars and hotel liquor licences, the administration stated that 50 retail liquor vends attached to bars and restaurants were operational across the Union Territory, including 38 in Leh, seven in Nubra, three in Zanskar and two in Changthang. In addition, two beer bars were operational in Leh.

The administration further stated that nine hotels in Leh held liquor licences, of which four had applied for and received licences during the current year. One hotel in Nubra had also applied for and obtained a licence during the year.

Clarifying the licensing procedure, the administration maintained that licences were issued only to applicants meeting the prescribed requirements. It added that distance criteria relating to highways, religious institutions and educational institutions were followed while granting licences to bars and hotels.

On this basis, the administration rejected Wangchuk’s allegation that bars were being opened in every street and locality or near schools without regard to the prescribed rules.

The administration maintained that the official records did not support the allegations made during the press conference and accused Wangchuk of creating unnecessary public alarm through inaccurate claims.

Concluding its statement, the UT Administration advised Wangchuk to verify information through official sources before making public allegations or presenting claims to the national media. It reiterated that the facts concerning the excise policy and liquor licensing should be assessed on the basis of official records.

The clarification comes amid public discussion surrounding liquor licensing and the implementation of excise regulations in Ladakh. The administration’s statement seeks to distinguish between the withdrawn proposals under the 2026-27 policy and the provisions currently in force under the restored 2025-26 policy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *