By Kenneth Nongsiej
Prior to the enactment of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, the Draft Sixth Schedule was rigorously discussed in the Constituent Assembly on September 5,6,7 1949. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chairman of the Drafting Committee, tabled the draft in the Assembly after an intense debate concerning the future of the autonomous district councils. The fundamental issue was whether to provide autonomous governance for the tribal areas to allow them to develop self-government skills or whether this form of autonomy would isolate these tribes from Assam and prevent them from integrating with the rest of India. This dilemma was briefly highlighted in a key argument during the debate “Do you want to keep them separate? If you want to keep them separate, they will combine with Tibet, they will combine with Burma, they will never combine with the rest of India.”
This debate raised questions about how to balance autonomy with national integration. On the one hand, there was the fear that providing autonomy to tribal regions would alienate them from the rest of the country with the potential to encourage them to form alliances with neighbouring countries such as Tibet and Burma, thus threatening the unity of the newly independent nation. Members who supported autonomy placed their arguments that self-governance was necessary for the tribal regions to preserve their cultural identity and govern according to their customs and traditions. After intense discussions spanning three days, on September 7, 1949, the Drafting Committee, led by Dr. Ambedkar, presented the amended version of the Sixth Schedule, which was then adopted as part of the Constitution.
Governance Through Autonomous District Councils (ADCs)
The Sixth Schedule provides for the establishment of autonomous district councils (ADCs), which are responsible for administering certain tribal areas in the North East states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. The goal was to ensure a degree of self-governance for these tribal regions so that they could manage their affairs, such as land rights, social customs, and local governance.
Rev. James Joy Mohan Nichols Roy (Bah Joy), during the Constituent Assembly debates, strongly upholds the importance of self-governance for the hilly areas. He argued that the district councils which were to be created under the Sixth Schedule would have the power to make laws and regulations that reflected the needs and customs of the tribal people. However, these laws and regulations were not entirely absolute. However, they are subject to scrutiny and assent of the Governor so as to ensure that the governance structure is aligned with the broader interests of the state.
Bah Joy’s version of the Sixth Schedule was clear as he envisioned a form of self-governance that was rooted in the tribal people’s unique cultural practices and social norms. The councils were to have the power to regulate matters such as land ownership, management of forests, social customs, and local policing etc. The aspirations were to create a system where the tribal people could govern themselves according to their cultural values and genius while also ensuring that these areas were not entirely cut off from the governance structures of the state and the nation.
Permanent Status of the Sixth Schedule
The issue of whether the Sixth Schedule should be a permanent feature of the Constitution was another subject of debate during the Constituent Assembly discussions. One of the Assembly members, A.V. Thakkar argued that the system of autonomous district councils should be viewed as an evolving framework and subject to future amendments. He suggested that the Constitution should not create “states within states” on a permanent basis. Thakkar understood that the autonomous district councils system was an interim arrangement which could be changed or modified when the time was right.
In his view, the system of autonomous governance under the Sixth Schedule should be flexible enough to adapt to changing times. As he rightly pointed out all constitutions and laws are subject to change. The framers of the Constitution recognised that the Sixth Schedule could be amended at any time, just like any other part of the Constitution. Article 368 of the Constitution provides the framework for amending the Sixth Schedule as it grants the power to the Parliament to make necessary amendments to the provisions so as to ensure that the governance structures remain relevant and responsive to the changing needs of the people.
Soul Purpose
At its core, the Sixth Schedule was designed to protect the cultural, social, and political identity of the indigenous tribes in North East India. The framers of the Constitution understood that these tribes had distinct cultural practices and traditions that needed to be preserved and respected. By granting autonomy to these areas, they sought to ensure that the tribal people could govern themselves in a way that aligned with their values and beliefs, without external interference.The autonomous governance structure created by the Sixth Schedule was not just about providing self-governance; it was about protecting a way of life. It was meant to safeguard the unique identity of the tribal people, ensuring that they could continue to live according to their traditions.
The provisions of the Sixth Schedule have allowed the tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram to maintain a degree of autonomy that has helped preserve their cultural heritage.
Weakening of the Sixth Schedule
Paragraph 12A of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India was inserted by the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971. It was intended to resolve jurisdictional conflicts between the State Legislature of Meghalaya and the autonomous district councils of the region. The provision provides a legal framework for determining which laws prevail in cases of overlap between state and district council legislations.
The paragraph plays a critical role in Meghalaya’s governance, where autonomous district councils (ADCs) for the Khasi, Garo, and Jaintia tribes have been granted significant authority to legislate on matters of local governance. It can be understood that if both the Autonomous District Councils and the State Government make laws on the same subject the laws passed by the State Legislature will prevail over those enacted by the ADCs. This provision was to prevent potential legal conflicts and ensure a hierarchical structure in legislative authority.
For instance, the enactment of the Registration (Safety & Security) of Migrant Workers Act, 2020, by the State Government has effectively taken away the power of the KHADC to issue labour licences. The state’s law superseded the Council’s authority, as provided by the said paragraph. In the past, the HSPDP has demanded the complete deletion of Paragraph 12A, arguing that it erodes the legislative powers of the ADCs and compromises the federal structure meant to protect tribal rights.
The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India remains one of the provisions that ensures self-governance and to protect the cultural identity of the indigenous tribes of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. The debates on the said Schedule that took place during the drafting of the Constitution were made instrumental by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Rev. J.J.M. Nichols Roy which paved the way for a governance structure that has withstood the test of time. The continued existence of traditional heads, Hima, and community lands in Meghalaya today is largely due to the Sixth Schedule. However, it has been weakened with the intersection of paragraph 12A.