Similar Articles to 370: Special Provisions (371-371J)

Last updated: October 2026

Key Takeaways

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:

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 371 Series: States, Amendments, and Key Provisions
Article State(s) Amendment Year Key Provisions
371 Maharashtra, Gujarat 7th & 32nd 1956, 1973 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 Assembly committee of members elected from Sixth Schedule tribal areas (the same Act inserted Article 244A)
371C Manipur 27th 1971 Hill Areas Committee; Governor's annual report to President; Union may give directions on Hill Areas
371D Andhra Pradesh, Telangana 32nd 1973 Equitable opportunities in education and employment; Administrative Tribunal (clause (5) struck down, 1987)
371E Andhra Pradesh (University of Hyderabad, now in Telangana) 32nd 1973 Central university establishment provision
371F Sikkim 36th 1975 Minimum 30-member Assembly; reservation of seats for sections of the population; Governor's peace and development role; courts barred from disputes over pre-merger treaties (clause (m), subject to Article 143)
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, renamed Kalyana-Karnataka in 2019) 98th 2012 Development board; Reservations in education and employment for region

Note on years: The Year column gives the year of the Amendment Act. Dates of entry into force include: 7th Amendment, 1 November 1956; 22nd, 25 September 1969; 32nd, 1 July 1974; 36th, 26 April 1975; 56th, 30 May 1987; 98th, 1 January 2013 (list of amendments). The 32nd Amendment also amended Article 371 itself; its current text retains only clause (2) on Maharashtra and Gujarat (constitutionofindia.net).

Note: Article 370 (J&K) was declared inoperative through Presidential Orders of 5 and 6 August 2019. Unlike the 371 series, it contained its own clause (3), which was used in that process.

Article 371: Maharashtra & Gujarat

Historical Background

The original Article 371 of 1950 (Article 306B of the Draft Constitution) placed the governments of Part B States (mostly former princely states) under the general control of the President for ten years. 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. Its operative text is clause (2), under which the President may provide for the special responsibility of the Governor in the matters below (text).

Key Provisions

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

Constitutional Significance

Article 371A is the most extensive special provision in the 371 series. It creates a framework closest to Article 370 by:

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: While the Naga peace talks continue (Framework Agreement 2015), Article 371A remains fully operative. Commentators note that a 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 talks that had begun with the 1997 ceasefire (The Tribune). Key aspects:

Note: The Government of India has not published the text of the Framework Agreement. In August 2020 NSCN-IM released a version that refers to "sharing the sovereign power" and an "enduring inclusive new relationship of peaceful co-existence of the two entities". The Government does not accept NSCN-IM's reading of this as recognition of separate sovereignty, and NSCN-IM's demands for a separate Naga flag and constitution remain the main points of disagreement (Deccan Herald; Insights).

Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority (2026)

On 5 February 2026 the Government of India, the Government of Nagaland and the Eastern Nagaland Peoples' Organisation (ENPO) signed a Memorandum of Agreement in New Delhi to create a Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority (FNTA). It covers six districts (Tuensang, Mon, Kiphire, Longleng, Noklak and Shamator), with 46 subjects to be devolved to it. The Ministry of Home Affairs stated that the agreement "does not affect in any manner whatsoever" the provisions of Article 371(A) (Morung Express, 5 February 2026).

Article 371B: Assam – Tribal Area Committee

Historical Background

Inserted by the 22nd Amendment Act, 1969 (in force 25 September 1969), Article 371B addresses the administration of tribal areas in Assam that fall under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. It refers to the tribal areas listed in the table appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule (22nd Amendment).

Article 244A: Autonomous State within Assam

The same Constitution (Twenty-second Amendment) Act, 1969 also inserted Article 244A. It empowers Parliament to make a law forming an autonomous State within Assam, comprising certain tribal areas, with its own Legislature, Council of Ministers or both, and with powers defined by that law. The Act also amended Article 275 to provide for grants to such an autonomous State (22nd Amendment). Article 244A and Article 371B were therefore enacted together as a package for Assam's tribal areas.

Key Provisions

Contemporary Context

Some of Assam's former tribal areas now lie in separate states: the Sixth Schedule's tribal-area table now lists areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram (National Commission for Scheduled Tribes). 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:

Currently, the Sixth Schedule covers tribal areas in Assam (Bodoland Territorial Council, Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao/North Cachar Hills councils), Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram, through 10 autonomous councils in all (see the comparison below). Article 371B supplements this framework with a committee of the Assam Assembly made up of members elected from these areas.

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 single Article 370 mechanism. The combination is sometimes described as "layered" autonomy, with several levels of autonomy operating at the same time.

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

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 (2023-2026)

The ethnic conflict between Meitei and Kuki communities that erupted in May 2023 has renewed debates about the adequacy of Article 371C protections. Some groups demand Sixth Schedule status for the hill areas, a long-standing demand since Manipur's statehood (Sixth Schedule), while others call for territorial separation.

President's Rule was imposed on 13 February 2025 after Chief Minister N. Biren Singh resigned. It was revoked on 4 February 2026, when Yumnam Khemchand Singh was sworn in as Chief Minister of a BJP, NPP, NPF and JD(U) ministry, with Nemcha Kipgen and Losii Dikho as Deputy Chief Ministers (News18, 4 February 2026; ministry).

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

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 on 14 April 1975 in which 97.55% of votes cast (59,637 for, 1,496 against) were in favour (Wikipedia).

Key Provisions

Comparison with Article 370

Critical Analysis

Similarities:

  • Both concerned territories that joined India through distinct instruments (J&K through the Instrument of Accession, 1947; Sikkim, an Indian protectorate, through the 36th Amendment, 1975)
  • 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. Critics of Article 370's prolonged transitional status have described the Sikkim approach as a better model.

Court Exclusion: The bar on court jurisdiction over pre-merger treaties (clause (m) of Article 371F) has no direct counterpart in Article 370.

Litigation: Article 371F has been before the Supreme Court. R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India (1993) concerned the reservation of 12 of the 32 Sikkim Assembly seats for Bhutia-Lepcha people and one seat for the Sangha (judgment). In Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India (13 January 2023), the Court dealt with the definition of "Sikkimese" for the income-tax exemption in Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act. On 8 February 2023 it clarified that the validity or interpretation of Article 371F was not the subject matter before it (judgment; clarification).

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

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

Commentators frequently describe the Mizo Accord as one of India's most successful insurgency settlements. The MNF moved from armed rebellion to democratic politics, and its leader Laldenga became Chief Minister. Supporters of special provisions cite it as evidence that constitutional accommodation of regional aspirations can help resolve conflict.

Contrast with J&K: Unlike Kashmir, where special status remained contested, Mizoram's special provisions have not been a major subject of national political dispute.

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 (Article 371H; commenced 20 February 1987). The region's strategic location along the China border and diverse tribal population required special administrative arrangements.

Key Provisions

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; Article 371I). 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. The Bill's Statement of Objects and Reasons lists the districts of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur, Koppal, Yadgir and Bellary. Lok Sabha passed the Bill on 18 December 2012 and Rajya Sabha on 19 December 2012 (PRS), and the Amendment came into force on 1 January 2013. Most of the region was part of the Nizam's Hyderabad State before the 1956 reorganisation, when it was merged into Mysore State (Wikipedia); Bellary district came from Madras State.

In September 2019 the Karnataka government renamed the region Kalyana-Karnataka, and the Hyderabad-Karnataka Region Development Board became the Kalyana Karnataka Region Development Board (KKRDB) (The News Minute).

Key Provisions

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 (now Kalyana 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.

States with ILP Requirements

Inner Line Permit Implementation Across States
State ILP Status Related Article 371 Key Features
Arunachal Pradesh Mandatory Article 371H Entire state covered; online application available for Indian citizens through the state e-ILP portal (MyGov)
Nagaland Mandatory Article 371A Notification of 20 September 2024 extended ILP to Dimapur, Chümoukedima and Niuland (superseding 2019 and 2023 notifications), with exemptions for residents settled before 22 November 1979 (notification); upheld by the Gauhati High Court on 16 June 2026
Mizoram Mandatory Article 371G ILP counter at Sairang railway station after the 51.38-km Bairabi–Sairang line opened on 13 September 2025; over 22,500 permits issued there by 8 January 2026 (Sentinel Assam)
Manipur Mandatory (from December 2019) Article 371C Extended by the President's Adaptation of Laws (Amendment) Order, 2019, signed 11 December 2019 (SCC Online)

ILP vs Article 371: Complementary Protections

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). In September 2024 the Assam Cabinet decided to implement 57 of the 67 recommendations of the Justice Biplab Kumar Sarma committee on Clause 6 of the Assam Accord, leaving recommendations that need the Centre's clearance for further talks (IANS via Morung Express, 6 September 2024).

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.

Fifth Schedule vs Sixth Schedule

Alongside the Article 371 series, Article 244 provides two schedules for tribal areas. Clause (1) applies the Fifth Schedule to Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in states other than Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. Clause (2) applies the Sixth Schedule to the tribal areas of those four states (Constitution of India).

Fifth and Sixth Schedules compared
Aspect Fifth Schedule Sixth Schedule
Constitutional basis Article 244(1) Article 244(2); the 22nd Amendment (1969) added Article 244A for an autonomous State within Assam
Where it applies Scheduled Areas notified in 10 states: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana Tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram (Tripura added in 1984)
Institutions Administered by the State, with special responsibilities for the Governor, who may direct that a particular Central or State Act does not apply, or applies with exceptions, in a Scheduled Area (Fifth Schedule, para 5; text) 10 elected autonomous councils: Assam 3 (Bodoland Territorial Council, Karbi Anglong, Dima Hasao/North Cachar Hills), Meghalaya 3 (Garo, Jaintia and Khasi Hills), Mizoram 3 (Chakma, Lai, Mara), Tripura 1 (Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council)
Degree of autonomy Weaker forms of autonomy than the Sixth Schedule Stronger; councils have legislative, executive and judicial functions over subjects such as land, forests and customary law

Sources: Scheduled Areas; Sixth Schedule. Hill tribes in Manipur, a former princely state that did not receive Sixth Schedule coverage, have long sought its extension; Article 371C's Hill Areas Committee is the existing mechanism there.

Ladakh: Sixth Schedule and Article 371 Demand (as of October 2026)

Since becoming a Union Territory without a legislature in 2019, Ladakh has seen demands from the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) for statehood, inclusion in the Sixth Schedule and safeguards for land, jobs, culture and identity. Article 244(2) and the Sixth Schedule currently name only Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram, so including Ladakh would require a constitutional amendment.

Note: "Article 371K" is a proposal under discussion, not part of the Constitution. Any new Article 371 provision for Ladakh would need a constitutional amendment under Article 368. For the full background and a round-by-round talks tracker, see Ladakh Statehood & Sixth Schedule Demand and its talks tracker; for wider coverage, see Current Affairs.

Article 370 vs Article 371 Series: Key Differences

Structural Comparison: Article 370 and Article 371 Series
Aspect Article 370 (J&K) Article 371 Series
Constitutional Status "Temporary provision" with built-in cessation clause (370(3)) "Special provisions" with no clause for ending the article as a whole; require an 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 Presidential Orders under Article 370(1)(d) and 370(3) (C.O. 272 and C.O. 273, 2019); the Supreme Court upheld these but held the use of Article 367 to reinterpret "Constituent Assembly" impermissible Would require constitutional amendment under Article 368
Population Affected About 12.5 million (J&K and Ladakh combined, Census 2011: 12,541,302; Kashmir Despatch) Several hundred 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) Several provisions litigated: clause (5) of 371D struck down (1987); Sikkim seat reservations under 371F examined (1993); no provision repealed (details)

Analytical Points

Courts and the Article 371 Series

Why Article 371 Survived While Article 370 Was Abrogated

Several factors are commonly cited to explain why the Article 371 series remained in force after Article 370 was made inoperative in 2019. They are set out below with their sources. They describe the legal and political record and do not settle the underlying debate.

  1. Text and label: Article 370 was headed "Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir" and contained its own clause (3) allowing the President to declare it inoperative. On 11 December 2023 a five-judge Bench unanimously held it to be a temporary provision and upheld its abrogation (overview). The 371 series is headed "Special provision(s)" and contains no comparable clause (Article 371 text).
  2. Mechanism: Article 370 governed how the rest of the Constitution applied to J&K through Presidential Orders. The 371 provisions operate inside a fully applicable Constitution and add specific carve-outs: consent resolutions (371A, 371G), Governor's special responsibilities (371, 371A, 371F, 371H), development boards (371, 371J) and local quotas (371D, 371J).
  3. The Court's framing: The Constitution Bench rejected the argument that J&K retained internal sovereignty, stating that "residual legislative powers cannot be equated to residual sovereignty". Supreme Court Observer grouped the case among 2023 Constitution Bench decisions "centred around asymmetric federalism" (Supreme Court Observer, 8 January 2024). On this reading, differences in states' powers can exist within the Constitution without implying separate sovereignty, which is how the 371 series operates.
  4. The Centre's statement in court: On 23 August 2023, during the hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Bench: "We must understand the difference between temporary provision which is Article 370 and special provisions with regards to the north east. The Central government has no intention to touch any part which gives special provisions to North East and other regions" (LiveLaw).
  5. A contrary view: Senior Advocate Manish Tewari, appearing for an intervenor from Arunachal Pradesh, had argued that Article 371 and the Sixth Schedule rest on a similar idea of autonomy and that the reasoning in the Article 370 case could affect the North East (LiveLaw).
  6. Continued use after 2019: The Centre has kept using Article 371-type arrangements. When the Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority agreement was signed in February 2026, the Home Ministry stated that it did not affect Article 371A (details). In 2026 talks it agreed in principle to "constitutional safeguards under Article 371" for Ladakh (details).
  7. Not beyond judicial review: Special provisions remain subject to the basic structure doctrine; the Supreme Court struck down clause (5) of Article 371D in 1987 (details).

Note: These points describe the legal and political record. How much weight the line between "temporary" and "special" provisions can bear is still debated, as the 2023 exchange between the Solicitor General and Mr Tewari shows. See also Sovereignty & Autonomy Debates.

Analytical Notes & Honest Opinions

On Asymmetric Federalism

India's constitutional framework recognizes that uniform treatment does not always produce equitable outcomes. Supporters describe the Article 371 series as a pragmatic way of managing diversity, providing targeted provisions rather than wholly different constitutional relationships. Comparable asymmetric arrangements exist elsewhere, for example in Spain and Canada, and in devolution within the United Kingdom.

Northeast States and Article 371

Supporters argue that Article 371A (Nagaland), 371G (Mizoram) and 371F (Sikkim) have contributed to peace and stability. These provisions emerged from political settlements and are credited by their supporters with protecting indigenous rights while maintaining national integration. Debates about their scope, such as Inner Line Permit extensions, continue, and the Naga political settlement remains unresolved.

Comparing with Article 370

One view holds that Article 370's difficulties were not inherent to special provisions but arose from:

On this view, the 371 series provisions have largely worked as designed, protecting regional interests while enabling integration. Proponents conclude that special provisions per se are not the problem, and that context, implementation and political handling matter more. Others regard Article 370 as different in kind because of its temporary character and its role in limiting how the Constitution applied to J&K.

Future of Special Provisions

The inclusion of Article 371J in 2012, and the 2026 discussion of Article 371-type safeguards for Ladakh, show that new special provisions continue to be considered when regional concerns are pressed. 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.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many states have special provisions under Article 371 series?

Twelve states have special provisions under the Article 371 series: Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Sikkim, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, and Karnataka.

What is the difference between Article 370 and Article 371?

Article 370 was a 'temporary' provision that created a separate constitutional arrangement for J&K requiring incremental integration via Presidential Orders. Article 371 series provisions are 'special' provisions that protect regional interests within the existing constitutional framework without requiring separate constitutional application mechanisms.

Can Article 371 series provisions be abrogated like Article 370?

Article 370 contained its own clause (3), which the President used in 2019 to declare it inoperative. The Article 371 provisions have no equivalent clause for ending the article as a whole, so modifying or removing them would require a constitutional amendment under Article 368. Some specific arrangements inside them, such as the Governor's special responsibility under Articles 371A and 371H, can end by Presidential order.

Which Article 371 provision is most similar to Article 370?

Article 371A (Nagaland) and Article 371G (Mizoram) are most similar as they protect customary law, religious practices, land ownership, and require state legislature consent before central laws apply on these matters.

Did the Centre say it will not touch Article 371?

Yes. During the Article 370 hearings on 23 August 2023, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Constitution Bench that the Central government had no intention to touch any part of the Constitution giving special provisions to the North East and other regions (LiveLaw).

Was any part of Article 371 struck down by the Supreme Court?

Yes. In P. Sambamurthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1987), the Supreme Court declared clause (5) of Article 371D and its proviso unconstitutional. That clause had allowed the State Government to modify or annul orders of the Administrative Tribunal (judgment).

What is Article 371K?

There is no Article 371K in the Constitution as of October 2026. The name has been used in the 2026 talks between the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ladakh's Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance for proposed Article 371-type safeguards for Ladakh (details).

Is the Inner Line Permit part of Article 371?

No. The Inner Line Permit comes from the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, which continues in force under Article 372. In June 2026 the Gauhati High Court upheld Nagaland's extension of the ILP to Dimapur, Chumoukedima and Niuland on this basis (details).

Sources & References

Primary Sources

Official Documentation

Academic & Scholarly

Judgments and Constitutional Text

Credible News & Analysis

Government Reports & Committees

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.

Back to top ↑