Won’t amend special provisions for northeastern states: Centre to top court

Clauses A to J under Article 371 incorporate a bundle of special provisions for the northeastern states and other states.

The Union government on Wednesday recorded an undertaking in the Supreme Court that it has no intention to touch or amend the special provisions relating to the northeastern states of the country, and that the constitutionally granted status and safeguards for such states shall continue.

The bench is seized of a raft of petitions that have laid the challenge to the abrogation of Article 370 soon after the presidential order in August 2019 (Agencies)

The Centre’s statement came before a Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud while opposing a plea that urged the top court to assess the impact of abrogation of Article 370 on the special provisions contained in Article 371.

Refusing to expand the proceedings on Article 370 to the special provisions concerning the northeastern states under Article 371, the bench, which also comprised justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Bhushan R Gavai and Surya Kant, took note of the undertaking of solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta that the Centre has no intent to touch any of the special provisions for the states in northeast or any other state mentioned under Article 371.

“We must understand the difference between a temporary provision like Article 370 and special provisions under Article 371. I am saying this on instructions that the central government has no intention of touching any part relating to the special provisions for states in the northeast. I am putting the apprehensions to rest on behalf of the central government so that, so such submissions are not entertained by this court,” the SG submitted.

Clauses A to J under Article 371 incorporate a bundle of special provisions for the northeastern states, including Manipur, Assam, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram, as well some other states, including Goa, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. Article 371 includes a wide range of specific safeguards, including protection of customary rights, land and boundaries, that are deemed important for these states. For example, Article 371-A states that no act of Parliament would apply to the state of Nagaland in matter relating to religious or social practices of Nagas, Naga customary law and procedure, while Articles 371-B and 371-C provide for a committee of legislative assembly of the state consisting of members elected from the tribal areas.

Mehta’s statement came after senior counsel Manish Tewari, representing a former Congress legislator from Arunachal Pradesh, argued that the process adopted in the nullification of Article 370 has direct and portentous implications on the unique federal scheme incorporated into the Constitution of India in order to integrate the northeastern states into the Indian Union. “Even a slightest apprehension can have serious implications in the northeast,” said Tewari, citing the ongoing violence in Manipur.

This prompted the SG to get up and clarify that the Centre has no intention to tweak the special provisions under Article 371 and therefore, allowing Tewari to argue on the possibility of the government tinkering with the constitutional provision may have “serious repercussions”.

Agreeing with Mehta, the bench told Tewari that there is no reason for the Supreme Court to deal with a situation in apprehension. “Why should we deal with anything in apprehension? We don’t have to expand the ambit of our proceedings to what will be the impact of the present proceedings on other provisions,” it said.

The bench further pointed out that while Article 370 has been classified as a “temporary” provision in the Constitution, Article 371 enumerates “special” provisions for various states. “We are not going to touch Article 371 in these proceedings. As a constitutional principle, when the government has no intention to touch any special provision in the northeast, why should we apprehend the government is going to do the same to other states? Let’s not focus on northeast. The apprehension has already been allayed by the government,” said the bench.

It then proceeded to close the application of former Arunachal MLA Padi Richoo, recording the SG’s statement.

“The learned solicitor general, on instructions, says that the Union government has absolutely no intent to touch or impact any other provisions relating to the northeast or any other parts of India. There is no commonality of interest sought to be addressed by the intervenor (Richoo) and the issue being adjudicated by the Supreme Court. In any event, the statement by SG allays apprehension of the applicant. The application is thus closed,” stated the bench in its order. The bench is seized of a raft of petitions, filed by parliamentarians from the National Conference party, Kashmiri citizens, former bureaucrats and various organisations that have laid the challenge to the abrogation of Article 370 soon after the presidential order in August 2019.

On July 3, the Supreme Court notified the setting up of a new Constitution bench, comprising its five most senior judges. The new bench started day-to-day hearings in the case from August 2.