Article 371 and Asymmetric Federalism in India

#GS-2 #Indian Polity & Constitution #Constitution #Federalism #Asymmetric Federalism #Article 371 #Ladakh #Sixth Schedule

Key takeaways

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) agreed in principle to propose Article 371K for protecting Ladakh.
Ladakh civil society groups demand Sixth Schedule status to safeguard a population that is ~97% tribal.
The proposed Article 371K creates a unified council with authority over land, environment, and civil servant APARs.
Existing special protections under Articles 371 to 371J cover 12 states to address historical, tribal, or economic needs.

The Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) reached an agreement in principle with local leadership bodies in Ladakh.
This understanding involves proposing a new constitutional provision named Article 371K.
The proposal comes after negotiations with the Apex Body, Leh (ABL) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA).

India uses asymmetric federalism to give special political, economic, and administrative rights to specific regions based on historical or ethnic needs.
These special provisions are housed under Part XXI of the Constitution, which deals with temporary, transitional, and special provisions.
In 1950, the original Article 371 put former princely states known as Part B States under presidential supervision for 10 years.
The 7th Constitutional Amendment Act (1956) removed state categories and redirected Article 371 to create development boards in Maharashtra and Gujarat.
Over time, Parliament added Articles 371A to 371J to protect tribal rights, resolve ethnic conflicts, and reduce regional economic gaps.

Article 371 allows the President to establish development boards for Vidarbha, Marathwada, Saurashtra, and Kutch to balance regional growth and education quotas.
Article 371A was added by the 13th Amendment in 1962 following the 16-Point Agreement of 1960 to protect Naga customary laws and land rights.
Article 371B was created by the 22nd Amendment in 1969 to establish a special committee in the Assam assembly for tribal areas.
Article 371C came through the 27th Amendment in 1971 to set up a Hill Areas Committee in Manipur with mandatory annual reports by the Governor.
Articles 371D and 371E were inserted by the 32nd Amendment in 1973 under the Six-Point Formula to balance employment and education opportunities in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
Article 371F was created by the 36th Amendment in 1975 to protect local laws and assembly seats when Sikkim joined India.
Article 371G was added by the 53rd Amendment in 1986 following the Mizo Peace Accord to shield Mizo social customs and land ownership.
Article 371H came through the 55th Amendment in 1986 and gives the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh special authority over law and order.
Article 371I was added by the 56th Amendment in 1987 to fix the minimum assembly size of Goa at 30 members.
Article 371J was introduced by the 98th Amendment in 2012 to offer education and employment quotas for the backward Kalyana-Karnataka region.

The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 turned Ladakh into a Union Territory without an elected legislative assembly.
Local groups led by ABL and KDA started protesting in 2020 to demand full statehood for the region.
They want protection under the Sixth Schedule (Articles 244(2) and 275(1)) because nearly ~97% of the local population is tribal.
Protesters are demanding a separate Public Service Commission (PSC) to secure jobs for local youth.
They are also asking for two separate Lok Sabha seats so that Leh and Kargil each get dedicated representation in Parliament.

Proposed Article 371K would create an elected council in a Union Territory that lacks its own state assembly.
The new body would hold direct authority over land, cultural heritage, forests, and local natural resources under Article 240.
Elected representatives would gain administrative oversight over officer transfers, postings, and performance reports (APARs).
Unlike Article 371H, the proposed council in Ladakh wants direct control over public order instead of leaving authority with the Governor.
Central laws regarding land acquisition would require approval from the local council before taking effect in Ladakh.

The Sixth Schedule operates through small Autonomous District Councils (ADCs), while Article 371K would establish a unified council across the entire Union Territory.
Legislative power under the Sixth Schedule remains limited to local subjects, whereas Article 371K offers wider authority over environment, minerals, and administration.
District councils under the Sixth Schedule hold little control over civil servants, but Article 371K grants elected leaders direct supervision over deputed officers.

Ladakh lies along sensitive borders with China at the Line of Actual Control and Pakistan at the Line of Control, requiring careful coordination between defense needs and local land rules.
Policy makers must balance political representation fairly between the Buddhist majority in Leh and the Muslim majority in Kargil.
Creating this special framework might lead other Union Territories like Puducherry or the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to demand similar powers.
Advisory bodies can easily lose influence without statutory backing, as seen with the Hill Areas Committee under Article 371C in Manipur.

The central government must establish clear statutory guarantees so the new council retains genuine executive authority.
Leaders from both Leh and Kargil must work together to ensure equal power sharing and prevent regional friction.
India can strengthen border security by giving local communities democratic control over their native land and resources.