Constitution of India
Article 371I: Special provision with respect to the State of Goa
Part XXI — Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions
Article 371I (no sub-clauses)
WHAT IT SAYS: Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Goa shall consist of not less than thirty members. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Goa's Assembly must always have a minimum of 30 MLAs. 2. This overrides Article 170(1), which normally sets the minimum at 60 members for any State Assembly. 3. The non-obstante clause ('Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution') gives this provision overriding effect over all general provisions. 4. Currently, Goa's Assembly has 40 elected members (from 40 constituencies), which exceeds the constitutional floor of 30. 5. This minimum of 30 cannot be reduced by ordinary legislation — only a constitutional amendment can alter it. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Doctrine of Asymmetric Federalism — permits differential constitutional treatment to accommodate a State's unique demographic and historical circumstances. 2. Non-Obstante Override — the opening words create a constitutional exception to Article 170's general minimum of 60 members.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): None — Article 371I is an ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION with no foreign model. INDIA'S SPECIFIC CONTEXT: 1. Goa was under Portuguese colonial rule for approximately 450 years (1510–1961). 2. Liberated on 19 December 1961 through Operation Vijay by Indian armed forces. 3. Incorporated as Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu under the 12th Amendment Act, 1962. 4. In the 1967 Opinion Poll (India's first and only referendum on statehood), 54.2% of Goans voted AGAINST merger with Maharashtra. 5. Growing demand for full statehood led to the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987. 6. The 56th Amendment Act, 1987, granted statehood to Goa on 30 May 1987 and inserted Article 371I. WHY FRAMERS FELT THIS WAS NEEDED: 1. Goa's small population and area (India's smallest state by area) meant it could not meet the Article 170 minimum of 60 Assembly members. 2. A constitutional floor of 30 ensured adequate democratic representation for Goa's diverse population. 3. The provision gave constitutional permanence to Goa's legislative structure during its transition from Union Territory to full State.
Constituent Assembly Debate
NOT APPLICABLE — Article 371I was NOT part of the original Constitution of 1950. It was inserted by the Constitution (Fifty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1987. Therefore, no Constituent Assembly Debate (CAD) record exists for this article. PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY: 1. The 56th Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament in 1987. 2. Buta Singh (then Union Home Minister) framed the Statement of Objects and Reasons. 3. President Zail Singh gave assent to the Bill. 4. The Act came into force on 30 May 1987. 5. Goa became the 25th State of the Indian Republic. 6. Daman and Diu were simultaneously constituted as a separate Union Territory. 7. Pratapsingh Rane became the first Chief Minister of the State of Goa (30 May 1987 – 9 January 1990). 8. Gopal Singh became the first Governor of the State of Goa (30 May 1987 – 17 July 1989).
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: There are no landmark Supreme Court judgments DIRECTLY interpreting Article 371I. RELATED JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES: 1. State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (2004) — The Supreme Court held that the composition of a State Assembly is a constitutional matter, not merely a matter of legislative discretion. This principle underpins Article 371I's constitutional guarantee. 2. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) — Reinforced the importance of fair and proportionate representation as a core federal principle. Relevant to understanding why Article 371I sets a minimum floor for Goa. 3. In Re: Berubari Union (1960) — Established that special constitutional provisions for specific territories must be strictly construed. Applies by analogy to Article 371I's non-obstante clause. NOTABLE OBSERVATIONS: 1. In the Article 370 abrogation hearings (2023), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the Supreme Court that the government had no intention of amending any Article 371 provisions, including 371I. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. D.D. Basu — Noted that Article 371I is the simplest among all special provisions under Articles 371–371J, dealing only with legislative representation and not administrative autonomy or cultural protection. 2. M.P. Jain — Observed that unlike other Article 371 provisions for NE states (which protect customary law, land ownership, etc.), Goa's provision reflects its peaceful integration and culturally cohesive character, requiring only a representation safeguard.