Article 371H

Article 371H of the Constitution of India establishes special provisions for the State of Arunachal Pradesh, recognising its unique administrative, geographical, and security challenges. It was inserted by the Constitution (Fifty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1986, and came into effect on 20 February 1987, the same day Arunachal Pradesh attained full statehood.
This article is part of India’s constitutional framework designed to provide region-specific governance mechanisms, particularly for frontier and tribal states in the North-East, balancing integration with autonomy.

Historical Background

Before becoming a full-fledged State, Arunachal Pradesh was administered as the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA), a strategically important frontier region bordering China, Bhutan, and Myanmar. The area was directly governed by the Ministry of External Affairs, and later by the Ministry of Home Affairs through the Governor of Assam.
In 1972, it became a Union Territory under the name Arunachal Pradesh, with its own legislature and Council of Ministers. Recognising its distinct socio-political characteristics, sparse population, tribal composition, and sensitive international borders, Parliament passed the Fifty-fifth Amendment Act, 1986, providing for full statehood and incorporating Article 371H to ensure special administrative safeguards.

Objectives of Article 371H

The principal aims of Article 371H are:

• To address the security and administrative sensitivities of Arunachal Pradesh as a border state.
• To ensure effective governance and law and order maintenance in a geographically challenging terrain.
• To safeguard tribal interests and ensure political stability during the transition to statehood.
• To maintain central oversight in critical areas of governance without undermining the state’s autonomy.

Key Provisions of Article 371H

1. Special Responsibility of the GovernorThe most significant feature of Article 371H is the special responsibility conferred on the Governor concerning law and order in Arunachal Pradesh.
Under this provision:

• The Governor acts in his individual judgment on matters related to law and order in the State.
• In exercising this discretion, the Governor is required to consult the Council of Ministers, but he is not bound by their advice.
• The Governor’s decision on whether a matter falls within his special responsibility is final and conclusive.
• Actions taken by the Governor in this regard cannot be challenged in court on the grounds of whether he should or should not have acted in his individual judgment.
• The President of India has the authority to withdraw this special responsibility when satisfied that it is no longer necessary, based on the Governor’s report or other relevant information.

This arrangement was intended to ensure national oversight in maintaining peace and stability in a region that shares a sensitive international border and is inhabited by numerous indigenous communities.

2. Legislative Assembly of Arunachal PradeshArticle 371H also provides that the Legislative Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh must consist of not less than 30 members.

• This minimum strength is constitutionally fixed and cannot be reduced by ordinary legislation.
• It ensures adequate representation for the State’s diverse tribal groups, distributed across various remote districts.

This provision mirrors similar arrangements in other North-Eastern States (such as Mizoram under Article 371G) and ensures that the governance structure reflects local diversity.

Nature and Scope of the Governor’s Powers

The powers conferred upon the Governor under Article 371H are extraordinary and exceptional in scope, differing from the general powers under Article 163, which requires the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Key features include:

• The Governor’s discretionary authority in law and order matters is independent of ministerial control.
• The scope of discretion extends to deciding whether a particular situation involves law and order or security concerns warranting the Governor’s direct intervention.
• The finality clause ensures that such decisions are not open to judicial scrutiny, thereby granting the Governor constitutional immunity in these matters.
• However, this special responsibility is not permanent and may be withdrawn by the President through a notification, signifying that the arrangement is transitional and subject to review.

Comparison with Similar Provisions in Other States

This comparison shows that the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh enjoys broader and more discretionary powers in maintaining law and order than Governors in other North-Eastern States.

Judicial Interpretation

Although there is no direct or exhaustive judicial interpretation of Article 371H by the Supreme Court, it has been discussed in constitutional jurisprudence concerning gubernatorial powers.

• Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016): The Supreme Court examined the scope of the Governor’s discretionary powers in Arunachal Pradesh and held that:
  • The Governor’s special powers under Article 371H are limited to matters of law and order;
  • Beyond this domain, the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers;
  • The Governor cannot use Article 371H as a general justification for independent action in political or legislative affairs.

The judgment reaffirmed that the Governor’s discretionary powers are not absolute, but restricted to specific constitutional contexts such as Article 371H.

Legislative and Administrative Significance

• Security and Border Administration: The Governor’s enhanced powers ensure central oversight in managing law and order in a region sharing international borders with China, Bhutan, and Myanmar.
• Administrative Coordination: Article 371H allows coordination between the Union Government and the State to ensure stability and development in the frontier region.
• Protection of Tribal and Cultural Interests: While the article focuses on law and order, it indirectly safeguards local communities by ensuring peace and continuity of governance.
• Transitional Provision: The article was designed as a temporary measure during the State’s early years, allowing flexibility to strengthen administrative institutions and governance capacity.

Legislative History and Context

Arunachal Pradesh’s inclusion as a full-fledged State marked the culmination of a gradual process of political evolution:

• 1954: Administered as the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) under Assam.
• 1972: Became a Union Territory with a legislature under the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963.
• 1986: Parliament passed the 55th Amendment, granting full statehood and inserting Article 371H to maintain continuity and ensure stability.

This special arrangement was necessitated by the strategic importance of the region and the need for effective law enforcement and development in a border area with challenging terrain and limited infrastructure.

Key Characteristics of Article 371H

• It is a special constitutional provision exclusive to Arunachal Pradesh.
• The Governor’s law and order powers are discretionary and exercised independently of the State Cabinet.
• It is a non obstante clause, overriding other constitutional provisions where necessary.
• The President can revoke the Governor’s special responsibility through a public notification.
• It mandates a minimum 30-member Legislative Assembly, ensuring political inclusivity and representation.
• The provision is transitional, reflecting the evolving governance needs of the State.

Significance of Article 371H

• Administrative Flexibility: Enables efficient handling of law and order in a geographically and politically sensitive State.
• National Security: Provides constitutional support for strong central oversight in a frontier region of high strategic importance.
• Federal Balance: Demonstrates India’s approach to federalism—granting autonomy while retaining limited central intervention for national interest.
• Institutional Continuity: Facilitates governance stability during the State’s political and institutional development.
• Model for Frontier Governance: Serves as a constitutional precedent for balancing self-rule with national integration in border regions.