Legal Comparison of Article 371C (Manipur), Article 371A (Nagaland), and the Sixth Schedule

Asymmetric Federalism and Tribal Autonomy in Northeast India

1. Introduction

India’s constitutional design accommodates diversity through asymmetric federal arrangements, particularly in regions with distinct ethnic, cultural, and historical identities. The North-Eastern region exemplifies this approach through a range of special provisions, most notably Article 371A, Article 371C, and the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

While all three mechanisms aim to protect tribal interests, they differ significantly in legal strength, institutional autonomy, and enforceability. This section undertakes a comparative legal analysis to assess how far Article 371C measures up against the more robust autonomy frameworks under Article 371A and the Sixth Schedule.

2. Article 371C (Manipur): Limited Constitutional Safeguard

2.1 Nature and Scope

Article 371C is primarily procedural and advisory in nature. It does not confer legislative, judicial, or financial autonomy to hill areas but instead establishes a consultative mechanism through the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) within the Manipur Legislative Assembly.

2.2 Key Legal Features

• Applies only to the hill areas of Manipur
• Establishes HAC composed of hill MLAs
• Requires the Governor’s special responsibility
• HAC recommendations are non-binding
• No explicit protection of land, customary law, or resource ownership

2.3 Legal Limitations

Legally, Article 371C operates within the authority of the state legislature, leaving ultimate decision-making power with the Manipur Assembly. Courts have generally treated HAC consultation as procedural, not substantive, limiting judicial enforceability.

3. Article 371A (Nagaland): Strong Constitutional Autonomy

3.1 Nature and Scope

Article 371A represents one of the strongest autonomy provisions in the Indian Constitution. It was incorporated following the 1960 Sixteen-Point Agreement between Naga leaders and the Government of India, reflecting a political settlement rather than administrative accommodation.

3.2 Key Legal Features

• Applies to the entire state of Nagaland
• Parliament cannot legislate on:
• Religious and social practices
• Naga customary law and procedure
• Administration of civil and criminal justice involving customary law
• Ownership and transfer of land and resources
  without the consent of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly
• Customary law enjoys constitutional supremacy over general law
• State autonomy is substantive and enforceable

3.3 Legal Strength

Article 371A creates a constitutional veto for the Nagaland Assembly, limiting both Parliament and, indirectly, the Union executive. Courts have consistently recognised its binding nature, making it a hard autonomy provision.

4. Sixth Schedule: Institutional Self-Governance

4.1 Nature and Scope

The Sixth Schedule establishes Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) in tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura. Unlike Articles 371A and 371C, the Sixth Schedule creates separate governance institutions with legislative, executive, and judicial powers.

4.2 Key Legal Features

• Applies to specific tribal districts, not entire states
• ADCs have powers over:
• Land and forests
• Village administration
• Customary law
• Local taxation
• Councils can make laws with the force of legislation
• Judicial powers over customary disputes
• Financial autonomy through taxation and grants

4.3 Legal Strength

Sixth Schedule institutions enjoy constitutional status and functional autonomy. While subject to Governor’s oversight, ADC laws have statutory force, distinguishing them sharply from advisory bodies like the HAC.

5. Comparative Legal Analysis

5.1 Comparative Table

Feature	Article 371C (Manipur)	Article 371A (Nagaland)	Sixth Schedule
Type of Provision	Advisory / Procedural	Substantive Autonomy	Institutional Autonomy
Territorial Scope	Hill areas within Manipur	Entire state of Nagaland	Specific tribal districts
Legislative Power	None	Veto over Parliament	Law-making by ADCs
Customary Law	Implicit recognition	Explicit constitutional protection	Explicit legislative & judicial protection
Land & Resources	No explicit protection	Constitutionally protected	Under ADC control
Financial Powers	None	State-level	Local taxation powers
Judicial Powers	None	Customary justice protected	Courts under ADCs
Enforceability	Weak	Strong	Strong
Role of Governor	Supervisory	Minimal	Significant oversight

6. Implications for Manipur’s Tribal Communities

From a legal standpoint, Article 371C offers the weakest form of constitutional protection among the three frameworks. Tribal communities in Manipur lack:

• Legislative veto powers (unlike Nagaland)
• Autonomous institutions (unlike Sixth Schedule areas)
• Explicit constitutional guarantees over land and customary law

This asymmetry explains persistent demands for:

• Extension of the Sixth Schedule to Manipur hill districts, or
• Strengthening Article 371C to include binding consent mechanisms

7. Judicial Interpretation and Constitutional Silence

Courts have largely refrained from expansive interpretations of Article 371C, treating it as an internal legislative procedure rather than a substantive right. In contrast, judicial interpretation of Article 371A and Sixth Schedule provisions has consistently upheld tribal autonomy as a constitutional value.

This judicial silence has further weakened Article 371C’s practical impact.

8. Conclusion: Constitutional Hierarchies of Autonomy

The comparison reveals a hierarchy of tribal autonomy within the Indian Constitution:

1. Article 371A – Highest level of constitutional protection
2. Sixth Schedule – Institutional and legislative autonomy
3. Article 371C – Consultative and procedural safeguard

While Article 371C symbolically acknowledges Manipur’s tribal distinctiveness, it lacks the legal force necessary to address structural governance inequalities. Strengthening tribal autonomy in Manipur requires either substantial reform of Article 371C or adoption of a more robust constitutional framework, informed by the successes and limitations of Article 371A and the Sixth Schedule.