By Erwin K. Syiem Sutnga
India’s Constitution safeguards the unique cultural, social, and political identities of its tribal regions through provisions like Articles 371A (Nagaland) and 371G (Mizoram). These grant autonomy over customary law, land ownership, and resource management, yet their implementation has led to jurisdictional conflicts with Union and Concurrent List provisions under the Seventh Schedule.
While the Naga Accord highlights the historical and political significance of Article 371A, it also exposes ambiguities in its application. In contrast, the Sixth Schedule (Article 244(2)) provides a structured and decentralized model of tribal governance through Autonomous District Councils (ADCs). This article examines the interplay between Articles 371A, 371G, and the Sixth Schedule, drawing insights from key legal cases such as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shillong City Bus Syndicate (1995) and recent Supreme Court rulings on mining and environmental governance.
Articles 371A and 371G: Safeguarding Tribal Autonomy or Creating Constitutional Imbroglio?
Article 371A – Nagaland – Article 371A was introduced through the 16-Point Agreement of 1960, which led to Nagaland’s statehood in 1963. It provides that no Act of Parliament will apply to Nagaland unless the Nagaland Legislative Assembly decides otherwise in matters of:
1. Religious or social practices of the Nagas.
2. Naga customary law and procedure.
3. Administration of civil and criminal justice according to customary laws.
4. Ownership and transfer of land and its resources.
While this was meant to preserve Naga traditions and self-governance, vague language and lack of implementation mechanisms have led to conflicts, particularly regarding resource control and customary law enforcement.
The Naga Accord (2015 Framework Agreement), signed between the Government of India and NSCN-IM, aimed to resolve the long-standing insurgency and autonomy demands. However, its lack of clarity on territorial integration and governance has deepened uncertainties.
Article 371G – Mizoram
Similarly, Article 371G grants Mizoram autonomy over:
1. Religious or social practices of the Mizos.
2. Customary laws and procedures.
3. Administration of justice under customary laws.
4. Ownership and transfer of land and resources (unless the Mizoram Legislative Assembly decides otherwise).
Mizoram relies heavily on customary courts, operating alongside formal judicial systems. However, conflicts arise when customary practices clash with central laws, particularly in areas like forest conservation and land regulation. The Naga Accord and Its Implications: The Naga Accord remains central to the discussion on Article 371A. While it aims to enhance autonomy, it has exposed unresolved issues:
1. Resource Management Conflicts
Article 371A grants Nagaland control over land and resources, yet disputes arise over Union List subjects:
2010 Oil Exploration Dispute – Nagaland passed a resolution asserting autonomy over petroleum and gas regulation, but the Union Government overruled it, citing Entry 53 of the Union List (control over oilfields).
Impact – Stalled projects, economic stagnation, and increased dissatisfaction with Article 371A’s effectiveness.
2. Customary Law vs. Modern Legal Principles: Naga customary laws on inheritance clash with gender equality provisions in the Indian Constitution. The Naga Accord attempts to reconcile this, but legal uncertainties persist.
3. Territorial Disputes and Inter-State Tensions: The demand for “Greater Nagalim”—integrating Naga-inhabited areas across Assam, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh—has triggered conflicts with neighbouring states.
Lessons from the Sixth Schedule
Unlike Articles 371A and 371G, the Sixth Schedule provides a structured framework for tribal governance. It establishes Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) in Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura, granting them legislative, executive, and judicial powers over key tribal matters.
Key Features of Para 3 (Sixth Schedule)
ADCs in Meghalaya can legislate on: (1) Land use and management (2) Forests (excluding reserved forests) (3) Water resources for irrigation (4) Shifting cultivation regulation (5) Appointment and succession of Chiefs or Headmen (6) Administration of justice according to customary laws.
A crucial distinction is that Articles 371A and 371G grant autonomy at the state level, whereas the Sixth Schedule decentralizes power through ADCs, ensuring direct representation at the grassroots level. While Articles 371A and 371G rely on state legislative resolutions, the Sixth Schedule offers clear jurisdictional boundaries, reducing governance conflicts.
One major challenge under Articles 371A and 371G is resource management disputes. In Nagaland, the 2010 oil dispute exposed the legal ambiguity surrounding state control over petroleum. Though Article 371A theoretically grants Nagaland ownership, Union List provisions override it, leading to economic stagnation and political tensions. The Sixth Schedule, however, clearly defines ADCs’ powers over land and natural resources, ensuring fewer disputes.
Further, Articles 371A and 371G lack structured mechanisms for dispute resolution, resulting in long-standing conflicts. The Sixth Schedule provides a more effective framework—the Governor has the authority under Para 15 to intervene and resolve disputes, ensuring smoother governance. Additionally, ADCs operate within a clear judicial oversight system, with appeals directed to the High Court, reinforcing constitutional compliance.
Thus, while Articles 371A and 371G attempt to protect tribal identity, their vague wording and legal gaps create governance challenges. The Sixth Schedule offers a more effective model, balancing tribal autonomy with constitutional clarity, making it a stronger alternative for safeguarding tribal interests.
Supreme Court Rulings & Their Impact on Tribal Governance:
1. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India (1996) – Forest Conservation
ADCs in Meghalaya were required to regulate timber industries, ensuring compliance with national laws.
Impact: Greater ADC oversight on forest conservation and traditional land rights.
2. Supreme Court Ruling on Meghalaya’s Coal Mining (2019)
Issue: Meghalaya’s rat-hole coal mining was banned by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2014 due to environmental damage.
Verdict: Tribal ownership upheld, but central mining laws apply. Meghalaya must ensure mining leases, environmental clearances, and safety compliance.
The NGT ban was upheld, forcing policy reforms for sustainable mining.
Conclusion: Articles 371A and 371G were designed to protect tribal identity and autonomy, but their vague language and lack of dispute resolution mechanisms have led to legal and administrative challenges.
In contrast, the Sixth Schedule offers a structured and effective model, balancing tribal autonomy with national integration. Meghalaya, instead of seeking an Article 371 provision, should strengthen its governance under the Sixth Schedule, ensuring that tribal rights and traditions are preserved within a constitutional framework that promotes stability and progress.