Similar Articles to 370: Special Provisions (371-371J)
Key Takeaways
- Part XXI Framework: Article 371 series (371 to 371J) operates under Part XXI of the Constitution alongside the now-inoperative Article 370, providing special provisions for 12 states covering ~100 million+ people.
- Regional Diversity: These provisions protect tribal customs, land ownership, religious practices, and regional development interests primarily in Northeast India and certain backward regions.
- Unlike Article 370: The 371 series provisions are "special" not "temporary" – they lack a built-in cessation clause, making modification require Article 368 amendments.
- Governor's Role: Many provisions assign special responsibilities to Governors for law and order, tribal affairs, and regional development boards.
- Asymmetric Federalism: India's federal structure accommodates regional diversity through these differentiated constitutional arrangements.
- Post-370 Relevance: After 2019 abrogation, Article 371 series remains the primary constitutional mechanism for asymmetric federalism in India.
- Layered Protection: Northeast states combine Article 371, Sixth Schedule autonomous councils, and Inner Line Permit requirements – creating multiple protection layers not present in J&K's framework.
- Active Evolution: The most recent addition (Article 371J, 2012) demonstrates this framework remains constitutionally active and can accommodate new regional needs.
Introduction: Special Provisions Under Part XXI
Part XXI of the Indian Constitution contains "Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions." While Article 370 (now inoperative) dealt specifically with Jammu & Kashmir, the Article 371 series addresses special provisions for various other states with unique historical, geographical, or social circumstances.
These provisions were inserted at different times through constitutional amendments to accommodate:
- Historical agreements: Accession terms and peace agreements (e.g., Nagaland, Sikkim, Mizoram)
- Tribal protection: Safeguarding customary law, land rights, and religious practices of indigenous communities
- Regional development: Ensuring equitable resource allocation in backward regions
- Law and order: Special Governor powers in areas with insurgency or internal disturbances
Constitutional Context: Unlike Article 370 which created a separate constitutional application mechanism requiring Presidential Orders for extension, Article 371 provisions operate within the existing constitutional framework with targeted exceptions.
Comprehensive Comparison Table
| Article | State(s) | Amendment | Year | Key Provisions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 371 | Maharashtra, Gujarat | 7th & 32nd | 1956, 1974 | Regional development boards for Vidarbha, Marathwada, Saurashtra, Kutch |
| 371A | Nagaland | 13th | 1962 | Protection of Naga customary law, religious practices, land ownership; Governor's special powers |
| 371B | Assam | 22nd | 1969 | Committee for tribal areas under Sixth Schedule |
| 371C | Manipur | 27th | 1971 | Committee for hill areas; Governor's annual report to President |
| 371D | Andhra Pradesh, Telangana | 32nd | 1973 | Equitable opportunities in education and employment; Administrative tribunal |
| 371E | Andhra Pradesh, Telangana | 32nd | 1973 | Central university establishment provision |
| 371F | Sikkim | 36th | 1975 | Protection of Sikkimese identity; Governor's peace and development role; Exclusion of SC jurisdiction on pre-accession treaties |
| 371G | Mizoram | 53rd | 1986 | Protection of Mizo customary law, religious practices, land ownership; Legislature consent required |
| 371H | Arunachal Pradesh | 55th | 1986 | Governor's special responsibility for law and order |
| 371I | Goa | 56th | 1987 | Minimum 30 members in Legislative Assembly |
| 371J | Karnataka (Hyderabad-Karnataka) | 98th | 2012 | Development board; Reservations in education and employment for region |
Note: Article 370 (J&K) was declared inoperative on August 5, 2019. Unlike 371 series, it had a built-in cessation clause (370(3)) that was utilized in the abrogation process.
Article 371: Maharashtra & Gujarat
Historical Background
Article 371 was originally drafted in 1950 for Part B states (former princely states). The current version, inserted by the 7th Amendment Act, 1956 and modified by the 32nd Amendment Act, 1973, addresses regional disparities in Maharashtra and Gujarat.
Key Provisions
- Development Boards: President may establish separate development boards for:
- Maharashtra: Vidarbha, Marathwada, and rest of Maharashtra
- Gujarat: Saurashtra, Kutch, and rest of Gujarat
- Equitable Fund Allocation: Governor has special responsibility for equitable allocation of developmental funds across regions
- Education & Employment: Equitable arrangements for technical education, vocational training, and government employment opportunities
- Annual Reports: Reports on development board activities placed before State Legislative Assembly yearly
Purpose & Rationale
These provisions address historical concerns about regional imbalance. Vidarbha and Marathwada regions of Maharashtra, and Saurashtra and Kutch regions of Gujarat were perceived as economically backward compared to their respective state capitals (Mumbai and Ahmedabad).
Analytical Note
Article 371 represents a developmental federalism approach – addressing intra-state disparities through constitutional mechanisms rather than creating territorial autonomy. Unlike Article 370, these provisions don't limit Parliament's legislative competence but mandate affirmative action for backward regions.
Article 371A: Nagaland – The 16-Point Agreement
Historical Background
Article 371A was inserted by the 13th Amendment Act, 1962, consequent to the 16-Point Agreement between the Naga People's Convention and the Government of India in 1960. This agreement ended years of Naga insurgency and led to the formation of Nagaland as a separate state on December 1, 1963.
Key Provisions
- Legislative Safeguards: No Act of Parliament shall apply to Nagaland in respect of:
- Religious or social practices of the Nagas
- Naga customary law and procedure
- Administration of civil and criminal justice involving Naga customary law
- Ownership and transfer of land and its resources
- Governor's Special Responsibility: Special responsibility for law and order in Nagaland, exercising individual judgment after consulting Council of Ministers (as long as internal disturbances continue)
- Tuensang District: Special provisions for regional council, administration, and separate legislative arrangements for Tuensang district (now modified with creation of new districts)
- Fund Allocation: Governor ensures specific-purpose central funds are properly utilized
Constitutional Significance
Article 371A is the most extensive special provision in the 371 series. It creates a framework closest to Article 370 by:
- Requiring state legislature's consent for central laws on sensitive matters
- Granting discretionary powers to Governor
- Protecting indigenous land ownership and customary practices
Honest Assessment
Similarity to Article 370: Both provisions emerged from conflict resolution and required consent mechanisms for extending central laws. However, Article 370 operated through Presidential Orders for constitutional application, while 371A operates through legislative resolutions for specific subject matters.
Current Relevance: Despite continued Naga peace talks (Framework Agreement 2015), Article 371A remains fully operative. Any final settlement may require further constitutional provisions or amendments.
The 2015 Framework Agreement
On August 3, 2015, the Government of India signed a Framework Agreement with the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN-IM) after 18 years of negotiations. Key aspects:
- Recognition of Uniqueness: Acknowledged "unique history and situation" of Nagas without specifying sovereignty claims
- Inclusive Approach: Aimed at bringing all Naga groups including NSCN factions into a comprehensive settlement
- Cross-Border Dimension: Addressed Naga-inhabited areas in Manipur, Assam, and Arunachal Pradesh
- Ongoing Negotiations: The agreement establishes principles; specific constitutional/territorial arrangements remain under negotiation as of 2026
Note: The Framework Agreement explicitly stated that settlement would be within Indian Constitution, potentially requiring amendments beyond Article 371A. This distinguishes it from Article 370's external-facing constitutional arrangement.
Article 371B: Assam – Tribal Area Committee
Historical Background
Inserted by the 22nd Amendment Act, 1969, Article 371B addresses the administration of tribal areas in Assam that fall under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
Key Provisions
- Committee Formation: President may constitute a committee of the Assam Legislative Assembly consisting of members elected from tribal areas under the Sixth Schedule
- Procedural Rules: President may make rules for the procedure and conduct of business of such committee
- Special Functions: Committee focuses on matters relating to tribal area administration
Contemporary Context
Assam's tribal areas have since been reorganized with the creation of separate states (Meghalaya, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh). The provision remains relevant for remaining autonomous councils and tribal districts within Assam.
Relationship with Sixth Schedule
The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution provides a unique three-tier administrative framework for tribal areas:
- Autonomous District Councils (ADCs): Legislative powers over land, forests, village administration, customary law, and inheritance
- Regional Councils: Sub-district level tribal administration in areas with different tribal communities
- Village/Town Committees: Local governance bodies under district/regional councils
Currently, the Sixth Schedule covers tribal areas in Assam (Karbi Anglong, Dima Hasao, BTAD), Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. Article 371B supplements this framework by ensuring legislative representation for these areas within the state assembly.
Note
Article 371B operates in conjunction with the Sixth Schedule, which provides for autonomous district councils with legislative, judicial, and executive powers for tribal areas. This layered autonomy framework is distinct from the singular Article 370 mechanism. The combination creates what constitutional scholars call "layered federalism" – multiple levels of autonomy operating simultaneously.
Article 371C: Manipur – Hill Areas Committee
Historical Background
Inserted by the 27th Amendment Act, 1971, coinciding with the grant of full statehood to Manipur (previously a Union Territory). It addresses the governance of hill areas predominantly inhabited by tribal communities.
Key Provisions
- Hill Areas Committee: President may constitute a committee of Manipur Legislative Assembly members elected from hill areas
- Assembly Rules: President may provide rules for functioning of such committee
- Annual Report: Governor shall submit annual report to President regarding administration of hill areas
- Executive Direction: President may direct the Governor on special matters regarding hill areas
- Hill Areas Definition: President specifies which areas are designated as "hill areas"
Significance
Manipur's geography divides the state into a central valley (predominantly Meitei) and surrounding hills (predominantly Naga and Kuki tribes). Article 371C attempts to balance interests between these communities within a unified state structure.
Current Affairs Note (2023-2025)
The ethnic conflict between Meitei and Kuki communities that erupted in May 2023 has renewed debates about the adequacy of Article 371C protections. Some demand Sixth Schedule status for hill areas, while others call for territorial separation. This highlights how even "special provisions" may require periodic reassessment.
Articles 371D & 371E: Andhra Pradesh & Telangana
Historical Background
Both articles were inserted by the 32nd Amendment Act, 1973, to address Telangana agitation concerns about equitable development and representation. With Telangana's formation in 2014, these provisions now apply to both states.
Article 371D: Key Provisions
- Presidential Orders: President may provide for equitable opportunities and facilities in public employment and education
- Local Cadres: Different provisions for different parts of the state regarding civil service appointments
- Educational Institutions: Reservation in admissions for students belonging to local areas
- Administrative Tribunal: President may constitute tribunal for service matters – decisions final, binding, and immune from other court jurisdiction
- Reorganization & Ratification: State may modify tribunal orders through legislative resolution with stated reasons
Article 371E: Central University
Parliament may by law establish a university in the State of Andhra Pradesh. This led to the establishment of the University of Hyderabad (1974), though it now falls in Telangana after bifurcation.
Analytical Note
Local Cadre System: Articles 371D enabled the creation of "local cadres" for government employment, essentially reserving jobs for local residents – a system that Article 35A similarly protected for J&K permanent residents. Post-abrogation, J&K's domicile-based job reservations operate under ordinary law, while 371D provides constitutional backing for Andhra/Telangana.
Telangana Bifurcation: The 2014 state bifurcation required careful adaptation of these provisions, demonstrating that special provisions can accommodate territorial reorganization – a point relevant to Article 370 debates.
Article 371F: Sikkim – From Protectorate to State
Historical Background
Article 371F was inserted by the 36th Amendment Act, 1975, when Sikkim merged with India. Previously a protectorate ruled by the Chogyal (king), Sikkim became India's 22nd state following a referendum where 97.55% voted for merger.
Key Provisions
- Assembly Size: Legislative Assembly shall have minimum 30 members
- Seat Reservations: Parliament may provide for reservation of seats for different sections of Sikkimese population and delimitation of constituencies
- Governor's Special Role: Responsibility for peace and equitable arrangements for social and economic advancement of different sections
- Extension of Laws: President may extend any enactment in force elsewhere in India to Sikkim with modifications
- Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Critically, excludes Supreme Court jurisdiction from matters arising from treaties/agreements concerning Sikkim entered before merger
- Existing Laws: All laws in force in Sikkim immediately before the appointed day continue until amended/repealed
Comparison with Article 370
Critical Analysis
Similarities:
- Both arose from accession of formerly independent territories
- Both involved extending Indian Constitution with modifications
- Both had provisions protecting pre-existing legal arrangements
Key Difference: Article 371F explicitly integrated Sikkim into the Indian constitutional framework from day one, while Article 370 created a mechanism for incremental integration. The Sikkim approach is often cited as the "better model" by those critical of Article 370's prolonged transitional status.
Supreme Court Exclusion: The exclusion of SC jurisdiction on pre-merger treaties (Clause 371F(k)) is unique and arguably more extensive than any protection Article 370 provided, yet has faced little scrutiny.
Article 371G: Mizoram – The Mizo Accord Legacy
Historical Background
Inserted by the 53rd Amendment Act, 1986, Article 371G implemented constitutional aspects of the Mizo Accord (June 30, 1986) that ended two decades of Mizo insurgency led by the Mizo National Front (MNF).
Key Provisions
- Legislative Safeguards: No Act of Parliament shall apply unless State Legislative Assembly resolves, regarding:
- Religious or social practices of the Mizos
- Mizo customary law and procedure
- Administration of civil and criminal justice involving Mizo customary law
- Ownership and transfer of land
- Assembly Size: Not less than 40 members
Constitutional Significance
Article 371G mirrors Article 371A (Nagaland) almost identically in its protective provisions. Both emerged from peace settlements with insurgent groups and prioritize cultural and land autonomy.
Success Story Note
The Mizo Accord is often cited as India's most successful insurgency resolution. The MNF transitioned from armed rebellion to democratic politics, with its leader Laldenga becoming Chief Minister. This demonstrates that constitutional accommodation of regional aspirations can succeed in conflict resolution.
Contrast with J&K: Unlike Kashmir where special status became a point of continued contestation, Mizoram's special provisions are broadly accepted and have contributed to stable governance.
Article 371H: Arunachal Pradesh – Law and Order Focus
Historical Background
Inserted by the 55th Amendment Act, 1986, when Arunachal Pradesh (formerly North-East Frontier Agency – NEFA) became a full state. The region's strategic location along the China border and diverse tribal population required special administrative arrangements.
Key Provisions
- Governor's Special Responsibility: Governor has special responsibility with respect to law and order in the State
- Individual Judgment: Governor exercises individual judgment after consulting Council of Ministers on law and order matters
- Presidential Override: President may order cessation of Governor's special responsibility if no longer necessary
- Assembly Size: Not less than 30 members
Note on Governor's Powers
The Governor's "individual judgment" powers under Articles 371A, 371H, and similar provisions create a constitutional space for gubernatorial action independent of elected government advice – a feature that has occasionally led to political controversies across Northeast states.
Article 371I: Goa – Minimum Assembly Strength
Historical Background
Inserted by the 56th Amendment Act, 1987, when Goa became a full state (separated from Daman and Diu). Goa had remained a Portuguese colony until 1961 liberation.
Key Provisions
Article 371I is the simplest in the series – it merely provides that the Legislative Assembly of Goa shall consist of not less than 30 members.
Note
Unlike other 371 provisions that address tribal rights, regional development, or autonomy concerns, Goa's provision is purely technical. This reflects that Goa's integration had fewer constitutional complexities compared to Northeast states or princely state accessions.
Article 371J: Karnataka – Hyderabad-Karnataka Region
Historical Background
The most recent addition, inserted by the 98th Amendment Act, 2012, Article 371J addresses the backwardness of the Hyderabad-Karnataka region – six districts that were part of the former Hyderabad State before 1956 reorganization.
Key Provisions
- Covered Districts: Gulbarga (Kalaburagi), Bidar, Raichur, Koppal, Yadgir, and Bellary (Ballari)
- Development Board: President may establish a separate development board for the region
- Annual Reports: Board's working report placed before State Legislative Assembly yearly
- Equitable Fund Allocation: Provision for equitable allocation of funds for developmental expenditure
- Educational Reservations: Reservation of seats in educational and vocational training institutions for students from the region
- Employment Reservations: Reservation in state government posts for people belonging to the region
Modern Application Note
Article 371J demonstrates that the Article 371 framework remains a living constitutional mechanism. It was inserted through democratic processes (constitutional amendment) to address contemporary developmental concerns. This offers a model for addressing regional grievances within constitutional bounds.
Implementation: The Hyderabad-Karnataka Region Development Board was constituted, and reservation provisions have been implemented – providing a test case for effectiveness of such provisions in addressing regional disparities.
Inner Line Permit (ILP): Related Protective Mechanism
What is Inner Line Permit?
The Inner Line Permit (ILP) is a travel document that Indian citizens from outside certain states must obtain to enter those states. It operates alongside Article 371 provisions as an additional layer of protection for indigenous communities.
Legal Basis
- Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873: Colonial-era law originally designed to protect British commercial interests, now used to regulate entry into protected areas
- Constitutional Backing: Linked with Sixth Schedule protections and Article 371 provisions for tribal areas
- State Implementation: State governments issue and enforce ILP requirements within their jurisdictions
States with ILP Requirements
| State | ILP Status | Related Article 371 | Key Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arunachal Pradesh | Mandatory | Article 371H | Entire state covered; online application available |
| Nagaland | Mandatory | Article 371A | Extended to Dimapur in 2019; expanded to 3 more districts in 2024 |
| Mizoram | Mandatory | Article 371G | Over 22,500 permits issued at Sairang station since 2024 rail link |
| Manipur | Mandatory (2019) | Article 371C | Extended to all districts; facial recognition system implemented |
ILP vs Article 371: Complementary Protections
- Article 371: Constitutional protection for land ownership, customary law, and requiring state consent for central laws
- ILP: Administrative mechanism controlling physical entry of outsiders into protected areas
- Sixth Schedule: Autonomous governance framework for tribal areas with legislative, judicial, and administrative powers
Together, these three mechanisms create a layered protection architecture unique to Northeast India. Article 370's framework for J&K did not have equivalent entry restrictions – any Indian citizen could visit Kashmir without permits (unlike Ladakh's Protected Area requirements for sensitive border zones).
Current Affairs Note (2024-2026)
Demands for ILP have grown in states like Meghalaya and Assam amid debates over the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The Assam Accord's Clause 6 committee recommendations (52 accepted by government in 2025) include enhanced protections for indigenous Assamese identity, though stopping short of full ILP implementation.
Contrast with J&K: Unlike Northeast ILP states, pre-2019 J&K's residency protections under Article 35A did not restrict entry but rather settlement rights – a crucial distinction in the comparative constitutional architecture.
Article 370 vs Article 371 Series: Key Differences
| Aspect | Article 370 (J&K) | Article 371 Series |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional Status | "Temporary provision" with built-in cessation clause (370(3)) | "Special provisions" without cessation clauses; require Article 368 amendment to modify |
| Mechanism | Created separate constitutional application framework; required Presidential Orders to extend provisions | Operates within existing constitutional framework with specific exceptions/additions |
| Parliament's Power | Limited by subject matters in Instrument of Accession; expanded only through concurrence | Parliament retains full legislative power; specific matters require state consent (371A, 371G) |
| Separate Constitution | J&K had its own Constitution (1957) | No state has separate constitution |
| Land & Property | Extensive restrictions via Article 35A on non-residents | Land protections exist (371A, 371G) but less extensive; tied to tribal/customary ownership |
| Current Status | Inoperative since August 5, 2019 | All provisions remain fully operative |
| Abrogation Path | Used 370(1) + 370(3) mechanism via interpretive adaptation | Would require constitutional amendment under Article 368 |
| Population Affected | ~14 million (J&K combined) | ~100 million+ across 12 states |
| Origin Context | Accession negotiations (1947-50), external dispute dimension | State reorganization, peace accords, regional development needs (1956-2012) |
| Litigation Status | Supreme Court upheld abrogation (Dec 2023) | No major constitutional challenges; provisions accepted as settled |
Analytical Points
- Integration vs Accommodation: Article 370 was designed for gradual integration of a newly-acceded territory; Article 371 series accommodates specific regional concerns within an integrated framework.
- Temporal Nature: The "temporary" label on Article 370 (though it persisted 70+ years) provided constitutional basis for its cessation. Article 371 provisions lack this, making them more entrenched.
- Precedent Concerns: Post-2019, questions arose whether the Article 370 abrogation methodology could be extended to 371 provisions. Constitutional experts generally argue no – the structural differences (no cessation clause, no separate constitutional framework) would require different approaches.
Analytical Notes & Honest Opinions
On Asymmetric Federalism
India's constitutional framework recognizes that uniform treatment doesn't always produce equitable outcomes. The Article 371 series represents a mature approach to managing diversity – providing targeted provisions rather than wholesale different constitutional relationships. This "asymmetric federalism" is found in many successful federal systems (Spain, Canada, UK).
Northeast States and Article 371
The success of Article 371A (Nagaland), 371G (Mizoram), and 371F (Sikkim) in contributing to peace and stability is underappreciated. These provisions emerged from actual conflict resolution and have largely delivered on their promise of protecting indigenous rights while maintaining national integration. The occasional debates about their scope (e.g., Inner Line Permit extensions) are normal federal negotiation processes.
Comparing with Article 370
A fair assessment must acknowledge that Article 370's problems were not inherent to special provisions but arose from:
- Unresolved external dimensions (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, UN involvement)
- The provision being perceived as symbol of separatist aspirations rather than integration mechanism
- Political instrumentalization from all sides preventing constitutional evolution
The 371 series provisions in contrast have functioned as intended – protecting regional interests while enabling integration. This suggests that special provisions per se are not problematic; their context, implementation, and political handling matter more.
Future of Special Provisions
The inclusion of Article 371J in 2012 demonstrates that India's constitutional architecture can accommodate new special provisions when genuine regional concerns warrant them. The framework remains flexible. Whether such provisions should increase or decrease depends on empirical assessment of their effectiveness, not ideological positions about uniformity.
Editorial Note
This page presents factual information and analytical perspectives. Views on the necessity, effectiveness, or appropriateness of special provisions vary across the political spectrum. Readers are encouraged to consult multiple sources and form their own informed opinions.
Sources & References
Primary Sources
- Constitution of India: Part XXI, Articles 369-392. Available at legislative.gov.in
- Constitutional Amendment Acts: 7th, 13th, 22nd, 27th, 32nd, 36th, 53rd, 55th, 56th, 98th Amendments
- Constituent Assembly Debates: Available at constitutionofindia.net
- Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873: Legal basis for Inner Line Permit system
Official Documentation
- Ministry of Home Affairs: Northeast Division documentation, ILP guidelines
- Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER): Policy documents and development reports
- State Government Sources: Official gazettes of respective states
- Sixth Schedule Area Reports: Autonomous District Council documentation
- Naga Peace Process Documents: 2015 Framework Agreement references
Academic & Scholarly
- Noorani, A.G. – Article 370: A Constitutional History of Jammu and Kashmir (2011)
- Basu, D.D. – Commentary on the Constitution of India
- Economic & Political Weekly – Various articles on federalism and Northeast India
- Indian Law Institute publications on constitutional law
- Borang, S. – Special Provisions and Constitutional Asymmetry
- Haksar, N. – Studies on Naga political history and Framework Agreement
Credible News & Analysis
- The Hindu, Indian Express, Hindustan Times – Constitutional analysis pieces
- PRS Legislative Research – Amendment analyses
- Supreme Court Observer – Judicial interpretations
- Economic Times – Northeast policy and ILP coverage
- Vajiram & Ravi, Drishti IAS – UPSC preparation materials on Article 371
Government Reports & Committees
- Biplab Kumar Sarma Committee on Clause 6 of Assam Accord (2025 recommendations)
- Hyderabad-Karnataka Region Development Board Annual Reports
- Manipur Hill Areas Committee Reports
- Nagaland Governor's Annual Reports on Special Responsibility areas
Disclaimer
This page synthesizes information from constitutional texts, government documents, and scholarly analyses for educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. For authoritative interpretation, consult certified constitutional texts, Supreme Court judgments, and qualified legal professionals. Views expressed in analytical sections represent one perspective among many in ongoing constitutional discourse.