Constitution of India
Article 371B: Special provision with respect to the State of Assam
Part XXI — Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions
Article 371B (single, undivided article — no sub-clauses)
WHAT IT SAYS: The President may, by order, constitute a committee of the Assam Legislative Assembly comprising MLAs elected from tribal areas specified in Part I of the Table under Paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule, along with other specified members, and modify the Assembly's rules of procedure for its proper functioning. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. The President can create a special committee within the Assam Assembly to represent tribal areas. 2. This committee includes MLAs from Sixth Schedule tribal areas (Karbi Anglong, Dima Hasao, Bodoland Territorial Region). 3. The President can also include non-tribal MLAs in this committee. 4. The President can direct modifications in the Assembly's rules of procedure to facilitate this committee. 5. The article uses 'Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution' — giving it overriding effect. 6. The committee's role is advisory — it lacks binding legislative authority. KEY DOCTRINE: Asymmetric Federalism — provides differential treatment to tribal areas within a state to protect indigenous interests and ensure their legislative representation.
Constitutional Inspiration
ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION — No direct foreign borrowing. WHY FRAMERS FELT THIS WAS NEEDED: 1. Article 371B was NOT part of the original 1950 Constitution — it was inserted by the Constitution (Twenty-second Amendment) Act, 1969. 2. It was a response to growing demands for autonomy from hill tribes (Khasi, Jaintia, Garo) in Assam during the 1950s-1960s. 3. It was part of a broader scheme alongside Article 244A to create an autonomous state within Assam — which eventually became Meghalaya in 1972. 4. The Sixth Schedule model of Autonomous District Councils was considered insufficient to address tribal political aspirations at the state legislative level. 5. India's unique multi-ethnic Northeast required a bespoke constitutional mechanism — no comparable foreign model existed. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Presidential Order mechanism — ensures Union oversight over sensitive tribal matters in a strategic border region. 2. Committee within State Legislature — a middle path between full autonomy and merger, unique to India's federal design. 3. Linkage to Sixth Schedule — ties legislative representation to the pre-existing framework of tribal self-governance.
Constituent Assembly Debate
NOT DEBATED IN THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY. REASON: Article 371B was NOT part of the original Constitution of 1950. It was inserted by the Constitution (Twenty-second Amendment) Act, 1969. PARLIAMENTARY LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 1. FIRST BILL: Constitution (22nd Amendment) Bill, 1968 (Bill No. 113 of 1968) — Introduced in Lok Sabha on 10 December 1968 by Yashwantrao Chavan, Minister of Home Affairs. — Referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses on 20 December 1968. — Joint Committee Report presented on 12 March 1969. — Bill was WITHDRAWN on 2 April 1969. 2. SECOND BILL: Constitution (22nd Amendment) Bill, 1969 (Bill No. 34 of 1969) — Reintroduced in Lok Sabha on 10 April 1969 by Yashwantrao Chavan. — Passed by Lok Sabha on 15 April 1969. — Passed by Rajya Sabha on 30 April 1969. — Ratified by more than half the State Legislatures (including Assam, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Nagaland, Mysore). — Not ratified by: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, J&K, Orissa, Punjab. — Presidential Assent: 25 September 1969 (President V.V. Giri). — Notified in Gazette of India: 26 September 1969. KEY CONTEXT: — On 11 September 1968, the Government announced a scheme for an autonomous state within Assam for tribal areas. — Article 371B was Clause 4 of the Bill — providing a legislative committee for tribal representation. — Chavan stated the scheme was needed to accommodate political aspirations of hill tribes. SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT: — The North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 (Act 81 of 1971), Section 71, substituted 'Part A' with 'Part I' in Article 371B, consequential to the reorganisation of Assam and creation of Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh (w.e.f. 21 January 1972).
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: Note: No major Supreme Court case DIRECTLY interprets Article 371B. However, closely related Sixth Schedule jurisprudence provides interpretive guidance. 1. T. Cajee v. U. Jormanik Siem (1960) — The Supreme Court upheld the inherent administrative authority of District Councils under the Sixth Schedule to appoint and remove traditional chiefs (Siems), affirming the constitutional independence of autonomous tribal governance. 2. State of Assam v. Ranga Muhammad (1967) — The Court reaffirmed that Sixth Schedule areas enjoy a distinct constitutional status and separate administrative framework, underpinning the rationale behind Article 371B's committee mechanism. 3. State of Assam v. Ka Brhyien Kurkalang (1971) — The Court examined the scope of the Governor's regulatory power under Paragraph 19 of the Sixth Schedule, clarifying that regulations made before the District Council's constitution remain effective — relevant to the interplay between gubernatorial authority and tribal autonomy. NOTABLE DISSENTS: None specifically related to Article 371B. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. M.P. Jain — Article 371B exemplifies the principle of 'asymmetric federalism' where uniform constitutional provisions are adapted to meet specific regional and tribal needs. 2. D.D. Basu — The special provisions under Articles 371-371J reflect the Constitution's commitment to unity in diversity, providing tailored governance mechanisms rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.