Constitution of India
Article 371H: Special provision with respect to the State of Arunachal Pradesh
Part XXI — Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions
Clause (a) — Governor's Special Responsibility for Law and Order
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. The Governor of Arunachal Pradesh has special responsibility with respect to law and order in the State. 2. In discharging this function, the Governor shall consult the Council of Ministers but exercise his individual judgment on the action to be taken. 3. PROVISO 1: If any question arises whether a matter falls within the Governor's special responsibility, his decision in his discretion shall be final and not questionable in any court. 4. PROVISO 2: The President, on receipt of a report from the Governor or otherwise, may by order direct that the Governor shall cease to have such special responsibility from a specified date. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. The Governor acts independently on law and order — he consults the Council of Ministers but is NOT bound by their advice. 2. The Governor's determination of whether a matter is a 'law and order' matter is final and immune from judicial challenge. 3. This special responsibility is transitional — the President can revoke it when no longer necessary. 4. This is a non obstante clause — it overrides other constitutional provisions to the extent of this article. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Doctrine of Governor's Individual Judgment — distinct from 'discretion' under Art. 163; here the Governor must consult but need not follow ministerial advice. 2. Finality Clause — Governor's decision on whether a matter falls within his special responsibility is non-justiciable. 3. Transitional Character — the provision is designed to be withdrawn when conditions mature.
Clause (b) — Minimum Strength of Legislative Assembly
WHAT IT SAYS: 1. The Legislative Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh shall consist of not less than thirty members. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Sets a constitutional floor for Assembly size to ensure adequate political representation in a sparsely populated, tribal-majority State. 2. Current strength is 60 members — well above the minimum. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. No specific doctrine — this is a representational safeguard ensuring democratic participation in a newly formed State.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Government of India Act, 1935 — Sections 52, 53 (Governor's special responsibilities in certain provinces) Original provision: Governors of certain provinces had 'special responsibilities' for peace and tranquillity of the province, exercisable in their individual judgment. What India kept: The concept of Governor's 'special responsibility' exercised via 'individual judgment' after consulting (but not bound by) the Council of Ministers. 2. Government of India Act, 1919 — Concept of 'transferred' and 'reserved' subjects under dyarchy. Original provision: Certain subjects remained with the Governor acting in his discretion, not bound by elected ministers. What India kept: The idea that in sensitive frontier regions, executive authority on specific matters (law and order) may remain with the Governor. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Transitional sunset mechanism — Unlike permanent colonial provisions, the President can revoke the Governor's special responsibility. This ensures the provision does not become a permanent derogation from responsible government. 2. Consultation requirement — The Governor must consult the Council of Ministers before acting, unlike the colonial model where the Governor could act without any consultation. This preserves a democratic element. 3. Border-state security rationale — The provision was tailored specifically for Arunachal Pradesh's unique strategic position bordering China, Bhutan, and Myanmar, not for general provincial governance. IF ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: Article 371H is largely an original Indian constitutional innovation — no foreign constitution directly provides a model for transitional gubernatorial special responsibility over law and order for a specific border state with presidential revocability. The framers of the 55th Amendment designed it to balance central security oversight with eventual full state autonomy.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: Not applicable — Article 371H was NOT part of the original Constitution of 1950. PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE: 1. The Constitution (Fifty-fifth Amendment) Bill, 1986 was debated in Parliament in December 1986. 2. The Bill was passed alongside the State of Arunachal Pradesh Act, 1986. 3. It received Presidential assent on 23 December 1986 and came into effect on 20 February 1987. STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS: 1. The Government decided to confer statehood on the Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. Given its sensitive border location, the Governor was to have special responsibility for law and order. 3. The Governor, while consulting the Council of Ministers, would exercise individual judgment. 4. The President could withdraw the special responsibility when no longer needed. 5. The State Legislative Assembly would have a minimum of 30 members. CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATE RECORDS: Since Article 371H was inserted by the 55th Amendment (1986), there are NO Constituent Assembly Debates (1946–1950) on this article. The relevant debates are in Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha records of December 1986. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: Not applicable — Dr. Ambedkar passed away in 1956, three decades before this amendment.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016) — Five-judge Constitution Bench held that the Governor's special powers under Article 371H are limited strictly to matters of law and order; beyond this domain, the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and cannot use Article 371H as a general justification for independent action in political or legislative affairs. The Court also held the Governor cannot unilaterally summon or advance Assembly sessions without ministerial advice. 2. Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra (2023) — Five-judge Constitution Bench referred the Nabam Rebia holding (that a Speaker facing a removal notice cannot decide disqualification petitions) to a seven-judge Bench for reconsideration; the Arunachal Pradesh political crisis of 2015–16 was central to this legal question. 3. State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) — Supreme Court reaffirmed that Governors in a parliamentary democracy cannot act independently outside specific constitutional provisions; reinforced the general principle that discretionary gubernatorial powers (including those under Art. 371H) must be narrowly construed. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. No formal dissent in Nabam Rebia (2016) — the five-judge Bench was unanimous on the core holding, though Justice Lokur wrote a separate concurring opinion with a slightly different reasoning on the Speaker's disqualification powers. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. M.P. Jain (Indian Constitutional Law) — Observed that Article 371H confers a unique position on the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh, distinct from other North-Eastern states, as it grants direct individual judgment on law and order matters rather than mere 'special responsibility' of a reportorial nature. 2. Sarkaria Commission (1988) & Punchhi Commission (2010) — Both recommended restraint in exercising gubernatorial discretion and emphasized that Governors must remain politically neutral; these recommendations apply with special force to states with enhanced gubernatorial powers like Arunachal Pradesh under Article 371H.