Special Provisions, Scheduled and Tribal Areas

1. Asymmetric federalism: why some units are treated differently

Read the detailed note →

• Asymmetric federalism means some units get a special constitutional status or special powers because of their history, culture or geography. The US federation is symmetrical, with every unit treated alike. Asymmetry can be de jure (written into law) or de facto (coming from differences of size, population or resources).
• India's de jure forms: Art. 370 (until 2019); Arts. 371-371J; Art. 244A; the Fifth and Sixth Schedules; Union territories, including Delhi under Art. 239AA; unequal Rajya Sabha seats; the Inner Line Permit; and the former special category status.
• Class 11, Federalism calls this "the most extra-ordinary feature": "many States get a differential treatment".
• Why asymmetry exists:
• history: terms of accession and peace accords;
• identity: customary law, land and language;
• geography and security: border and hill areas;

• uneven development: regional boards.

• Comparative cases: Quebec's civil law in Canada; the Basque and Navarre fiscal regimes in Spain; UK devolution; Sabah and Sarawak's control over who enters them in Malaysia (a parallel to India's Inner Line Permit).

• The debate: equality of states and "one nation, one constitution" vs "unity with diversity". Class 11 admits these provisions "have not been able to stem alienation and the insurgency". Asymmetry also has a demonstration effect: one group's special status sparks new demands (Ladakh, Kuki-Zo, Gorkhaland, Tipra).
• In re Article 370 (2023) called Art. 370 a feature of asymmetric federalism, not of sovereignty.
• NCERT correction: Himachal Pradesh has no Art. 371 clause. Its asymmetry comes from Fifth Schedule areas (Kinnaur, Lahaul-Spiti, Pangi, Bharmour) and the land-purchase curbs in s. 118 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972.

2. Jammu and Kashmir under Art. 370 (1947-2019)

Read the detailed note →

• Accession: under the Instrument of Accession (26 October 1947), J&K handed over only defence, external affairs and communications.
• Article 370 was a temporary provision in Part XXI. The heading "Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions" gained the word "Special" through the 13th Amendment, 1962. It limited Parliament's power in J&K to matters the state agreed to. Its clauses:
• 370(1)(b): Union and Concurrent List matters matching the Instrument of Accession needed consultation with the state government; all other matters needed its concurrence.
• 370(1)(d): other parts of the Constitution applied through presidential orders.

• 370(3): the President could declare the article inoperative on the recommendation of the state's Constituent Assembly.

• Constitution (Application to J&K) Order 1954 (C.O. 48) was issued with the state government's concurrence. It extended citizenship, most Fundamental Rights, Supreme Court jurisdiction and most of the Union List, and it inserted Art. 35A. Later orders extended more (verify the exact count of articles applied). Sampat Prakash (1969): Art. 370 did not lapse when the J&K Constituent Assembly was dissolved in 1957.

• Article 35A let the J&K legislature define "permanent residents" and reserve state jobs, the right to buy land, settlement and scholarships for them. It was added by a presidential order, not by an Art. 368 amendment. It stopped applying in August 2019.
• Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir: adopted on 17 November 1956, in force from 26 January 1957, with its own flag. The state had a "Prime Minister" and a Sadar-i-Riyasat until 1965.
• Features still distinct before 2019 (Class 11): no emergency on internal grounds without state concurrence; no financial emergency; no Directive Principles; Art. 368 amendments applied only with concurrence. The state also kept residuary power and a six-year assembly term.
• Two opposite reactions (Class 12): some demanded full integration; others demanded "Greater State Autonomy". The Union Cabinet rejected the J&K assembly's 2000 autonomy resolution.

3. The 2019 changes, the Reorganisation Act and In re Article 370 (2023)

Read the detailed note →

• The sequence (during President's rule, from December 2018):
• Constitution (Application to J&K) Order 2019 (C.O. 272, 5 August 2019): issued under Art. 370(1)(d) with the Governor's "concurrence". It applied the whole Constitution, superseded the 1954 order, and amended Art. 367 so that "Constituent Assembly" in Art. 370(3) would read "Legislative Assembly".
• Parliament, acting in place of the dissolved state assembly, recommended the declaration.

• C.O. 273 (6 August 2019): declared all clauses of Art. 370 inoperative except a modified clause (1).

• NCERT correction: Class 12 says Art. 370 was "abolished by the Reorganisation Act". In fact, the presidential orders made it inoperative, and its text is still in the Constitution.

• Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019 (passed under Arts. 3-4) split the state from 31 October 2019 into:
• the UT of J&K, with a legislature;

• the UT of Ladakh, without one. Each has a Lieutenant Governor, and they share a High Court.

• Delimitation (May 2022): 90 assembly seats (Jammu 43, Kashmir 47), with 9 reserved for STs and 7 for SCs. The Reorganisation (Amendment) Act 2023 allows nomination of two Kashmiri migrants (one a woman) and one person displaced from PoJK.

• Elections were held in September-October 2024. Omar Abdullah's government took office on 16 October 2024. Statehood has not been restored (verify current).
• In re Article 370 (11 December 2023, five judges):
• J&K kept no sovereignty after accession;
• Art. 370 was temporary;
• the power under Art. 370(3) survived the end of the Constituent Assembly;
• using Art. 367 to change Art. 370 was invalid, but C.O. 273 was valid;
• the Ladakh UT was upheld;
• whether Art. 3 allows a state to be reduced to a UT was left open, because the Union assured the Court that statehood would be restored "at the earliest";

• elections were directed by 30 September 2024.

• Critical angle: the state's "consent" came from the Governor and Parliament while the state was under President's rule.

4. Art. 371 series I: regional-equity provisions (Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Goa)

Read the detailed note →

Special provisions for certain states (Arts. 371-371J, all in Part XXI):

Article	State	Amendment
371	Maharashtra, Gujarat	7th, 1956
371A	Nagaland	13th, 1962
371B	Assam	22nd, 1969
371C	Manipur	27th, 1971
371D, 371E	Andhra Pradesh (now also Telangana)	32nd, 1973
371F	Sikkim	36th, 1975
371G	Mizoram	53rd, 1986
371H	Arunachal Pradesh	55th, 1986
371I	Goa	56th, 1987
371J	Karnataka	98th, 2012

• These provisions fall into two families: regional equity within a state (371, 371D, 371J) and identity and security (the North-East and Sikkim, Section 5).
• Special provisions for Maharashtra and Gujarat (Art. 371): the Governor has a "special responsibility" for development boards: Vidarbha, Marathwada and the rest of Maharashtra; Saurashtra, Kutch and the rest of Gujarat. The boards ensure fair shares of development funds, technical education and state jobs. Maharashtra's boards lapsed in 2020 and were later revived (verify current).
• Special provisions for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana (Arts. 371D-E): these came after the Mulki-rules agitations and the Six-Point Formula (1973). They provide local cadres and local reservation in jobs and education, an Administrative Tribunal, and a central university (University of Hyderabad). P. Sambamurthy (1987) struck down the proviso that let the state government override the tribunal, because it hurt judicial review.
• Special provisions for Karnataka (Art. 371J): a development board and local reservation in education and state jobs for Hyderabad-Karnataka, renamed Kalyana-Karnataka in 2019.
• Special provisions for Goa (Art. 371I): an assembly of at least 30 members, and nothing more.
• Assessment: do these boards and quotas reduce regional imbalance (Class 12's fourth lesson), or do they only delay demands for new states, such as Vidarbha?

5. Art. 371 series II: the North-East and Sikkim

Read the detailed note →

• Special provisions for Nagaland (Art. 371A; 13th Amendment, 1962): came from the Sixteen Point Agreement (1960). No Act of Parliament applies to Nagaland on these four subjects unless the state assembly so resolves:
• Naga religious and social practices;
• Naga customary law and procedure;
• civil and criminal justice under customary law;

• ownership and transfer of land and its resources. The Governor has a special responsibility for law and order. A live dispute is women's reservation in urban local bodies vs customary law (verify current).

• Special provisions for Mizoram (Art. 371G; 53rd Amendment, 1986): came from the Mizo Accord. It protects the same four subjects, but covers only "land", without "its resources". The assembly must have at least 40 members.

• Special provisions for Arunachal Pradesh (Art. 371H; 55th Amendment, 1986): the Governor has a special responsibility for law and order, using their own judgement after consulting the council of ministers.
• Special provisions for Assam (Art. 371B; 22nd Amendment, 1969): an assembly committee of members elected from the tribal areas.
• Special provisions for Manipur (Art. 371C; 27th Amendment, 1971): a Hill Areas Committee of the assembly. The Governor has a special responsibility for it and reports every year on the Hill Areas. This matters for the hill-valley divide and the 2023 conflict.
• Special provisions for Sikkim (Art. 371F; 36th Amendment, 1975):
• an assembly of at least 30 members and one Lok Sabha seat;
• laws from before the merger continue;
• seats may be reserved for sections of the people (Bhutia-Lepcha seats; a Sangha seat for the monasteries);

• the Governor has a special responsibility for peace and fair advancement of all sections. R.C. Poudyal (1993) upheld these reservations. Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim (2023) struck down the exclusion of pre-1975 settlers from Sikkim's income-tax exemption.

• Analysis: a Governor's "special responsibility" is an exception to the rule that the Governor acts on ministers' advice. Customary-law protections can clash with gender equality.

6. Tribal areas in the Constitution: colonial legacy and the Fifth Schedule

Read the detailed note →

• Excluded and partially excluded areas were created by the Government of India Act 1935 (ss. 91-92). These tribal areas were kept outside the ordinary reach of provincial legislatures.
• Excluded areas were run by the Governor at their discretion.

• Partially excluded areas were run under the Governor's individual judgement. They are broadly the forerunners of the Sixth and Fifth Schedule areas.

• Thakkar Sub-committee (1947): chaired by A.V. Thakkar, it studied tribal areas outside Assam. Its report shaped the Fifth Schedule and the Tribes Advisory Councils. Jaipal Singh Munda spoke for the adivasis in the Constituent Assembly.

• Scheduled Areas (Art. 244(1)): tribal-majority areas in states other than Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. The President declares them by order and may change them after consulting the Governor.
• The Dhebar Commission (1960-61), the first commission under Art. 339, set the criteria: mainly tribal population, compact area, a workable administrative unit, and marked economic backwardness.

• Ten states have Scheduled Areas: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha and Rajasthan.

• Tribes Advisory Council: up to 20 members, three-fourths of them ST members of the state assembly. It is mandatory in states with Scheduled Areas. The President may direct one in states that have STs but no Scheduled Areas.

• Governor's powers (para 5): the Governor can exclude or modify any central or state law in a Scheduled Area. The Governor can also make regulations on land transfer, land allotment and money-lending, after consulting the Council and with the President's assent. The Governor reports to the President every year.
• Amendment: Parliament can amend the Fifth Schedule by ordinary law (para 7), not under Art. 368.
• In practice: these powers are mostly unused. Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (2020) struck down 100% ST reservation for teachers in Scheduled Areas, because para 5 cannot override Fundamental Rights.

7. The Sixth Schedule: autonomous district and regional councils

Read the detailed note →

• Bordoloi Sub-committee (1947): found that Assam's hill tribes had their own customs and self-governing institutions, and feared losing their land. It recommended district councils, which became the Sixth Schedule (Arts. 244(2), 275(1)).
• Coverage today: four states, ten councils.
• Assam: Bodoland Territorial Council, Karbi Anglong, Dima Hasao.
• Meghalaya: Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills, Garo Hills.
• Tripura: one council.

• Mizoram: Chakma, Lai, Mara.

• Autonomous district council: up to 30 members. The Governor nominates up to 4, and the rest are elected for five years. Class 12 notes that the Karbis and Dimasas got such councils within Assam.

• Autonomous regional council: a council for a distinct tribe living inside an autonomous district.
• Powers:
• legislative (para 3): land, forests other than reserved forests, jhum (shifting cultivation), village administration, inheritance, marriage and social customs; laws need the Governor's assent;
• judicial (paras 4-5): village courts for cases between STs;

• financial: land revenue, taxes and a share of mineral royalties.

• Limits: the Governor can annul council acts or dissolve a council (paras 15-16). Parts IX and IXA (panchayats and municipalities) do not apply here (Arts. 243M, 243ZC). Parliament amends the Schedule by ordinary law (para 21).

• Case studies:
• Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council: set up by a 1979 state Act and brought under the Sixth Schedule by the 49th Amendment, 1984. It covers about two-thirds of Tripura. Class 9, Democracy's South Manubankul "women-friendly panchayat" lies inside it.

• Bodoland Territorial Council: created in 2003 and given more area and powers under the 2020 Bodo Accord.

• Gaps: dependence on state grants, delayed elections and few women members. The Constitution (125th Amendment) Bill 2019 proposes Finance Commission funds, State Election Commission polls and seats for women (verify status).

	Fifth Schedule	Sixth Schedule
Article	244(1)	244(2)
States	10	4 (Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram)
Body	Tribes Advisory Council (advisory only)	Elected district and regional councils
Law-making and courts	Governor's regulations	Council laws and village courts
Local self-rule	PESA 1996	Councils (Parts IX/IXA do not apply)
How amended	Ordinary law (para 7)	Ordinary law (para 21)

8. PESA 1996: gram sabha self-rule in Scheduled Areas

Read the detailed note →

• Why PESA: Art. 243M(1) kept Part IX (panchayats) out of Scheduled Areas. Art. 243M(4)(b) allowed Parliament to extend it with changes.
• Bhuria Committee (1994-95): chaired by Dilip Singh Bhuria, it proposed a model centred on the gram sabha (the assembly of all village voters). This led to the PESA Act 1996, which received assent on 24 December 1996 and applies to the ten Fifth Schedule states.
• Trap: the Bhuria Committee (1994-95, which led to PESA) is different from the Bhuria Commission (2002-04, under Art. 339).
• Core idea: self-rule based on custom. The gram sabha, not the elected panchayat, is at the centre. Class 9, Democracy calls the gram sabha "the primary decision-making body".
• Key powers (s. 4):
• state panchayat laws must respect customary law and traditional management of community resources;
• the gram sabha approves plans, selects beneficiaries and certifies how funds were used;
• it must be consulted before land acquisition and resettlement;
• its prior recommendation is needed for minor-mineral leases;
• gram sabhas and panchayats own minor forest produce, manage minor water bodies and village markets, and control money-lending;

• they can prevent land alienation (land passing out of tribal hands) and restore alienated land.

• Seats: at least half the seats go to STs, and all chairperson posts are reserved for STs. Higher tiers may not take over gram sabha powers.

• Implementation: eight of the ten states have PESA rules. Odisha and Jharkhand had only draft rules as of 2025 (verify current). The RFCTLARR Act 2013 (s. 41) requires gram sabha consent for land acquisition in Scheduled Areas. A Planning Commission expert group (2008) linked the Maoist problem partly to PESA not being implemented.

9. Land, forests and mining: Samatha, the Forest Rights Act and Niyamgiri

Read the detailed note →

• Samatha case (1997):
• Under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1959, the government counts as a "person". So leasing government land in Scheduled Areas to private non-tribal mining companies is void.
• Mining there may be done only by state undertakings or tribal cooperatives.

• The Court suggested setting aside at least 20% of net profits for tribal development, an idea echoed by District Mineral Foundations (2015).

• Forest Rights Act 2006: in force from 31 December 2007, with Rules in 2008 (amended 2012). Its preamble admits a "historical injustice" to forest dwellers.

• Who benefits: forest-dwelling STs, and other traditional forest dwellers with 75 years (three generations) of residence. The cut-off date is 13 December 2005.
• Rights: individual land rights up to 4 hectares; community rights, including ownership of minor forest produce; community forest resource rights to protect and manage forests (s. 3(1)(i)); habitat rights for PVTGs (particularly vulnerable tribal groups).

• Process: the gram sabha starts and verifies claims (s. 6). No eviction is allowed until verification is complete (s. 4(5)).

• Eviction litigation: in Wildlife First v. MoEF, the February 2019 order to evict rejected claimants was stayed on 28 February 2019 (verify current). Critics say the forest-conservation changes of 2022-23 weaken gram sabha consent (verify).

• Niyamgiri case (Orissa Mining Corporation v. MoEF, 18 April 2013):
• The Court held that gram sabhas must decide whether bauxite mining would harm the Dongria Kondh's religious and forest rights.
• All twelve gram sabhas rejected the project.
• The Environment Ministry refused clearance in January 2014.

• The case is India's template for free, prior and informed consent.

• The tension: protecting tribal rights vs mineral-led development, as in Hasdeo Arand and Great Nicobar (verify current).

10. Inner Line Permit and other frontier protections

Read the detailed note →

• Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation 1873: drew an "Inner Line" that outsiders could not cross into certain hill areas without a pass. It protected British commercial interests and kept the hill tribes separate. It still applies as a pre-Constitution law (Art. 372). Its curbs on movement are justified under Art. 19(5), which allows limits on free movement to protect Scheduled Tribes.
• Inner Line Permit (ILP): a travel document that Indian citizens from outside need to enter four states:
• Arunachal Pradesh;
• Nagaland (extended to Dimapur in December 2019);
• Mizoram;

• Manipur (from 11 December 2019).

• Trap: Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Sikkim are not ILP states. Meghalaya's assembly has demanded the ILP (2019).

• The Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 exempts ILP areas and Sixth Schedule areas (s. 6B(4)).
• Protected Area Permit: needed by foreigners under the Foreigners (Protected Areas) Order 1958. It covers all of Arunachal Pradesh and parts of Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan and Ladakh. It was reimposed in Manipur, Mizoram and Nagaland in December 2024 (verify).

Permit	Legal basis	Who needs it	Areas
ILP	Regulation of 1873	Indian citizens from outside	Arunachal, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur
Protected Area Permit	Order of 1958	Foreigners	Border and sensitive areas
Restricted Area Permit	Order of 1963	Foreigners	Andaman and Nicobar, parts of Sikkim

• The debate: protecting land, jobs and identity vs tourism, investment and free movement. It echoes the insider-outsider politics of the Assam movement in Class 12.

11. Art. 244A and new demands for autonomy: Karbi Anglong, Ladakh, Darjeeling and beyond

Read the detailed note →

• Autonomous state within Assam (Art. 244A; 22nd Amendment, 1969): lets Parliament create an autonomous state within Assam from Sixth Schedule areas, with its own legislature and/or council of ministers.
• It was used once: the Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) Act 1969 created autonomous Meghalaya in April 1970.
• Meghalaya became a full state in January 1972.
• NCERT correction: the concept note says Art. 244A was "never used"; this is wrong.

• Karbi Anglong groups still demand an autonomous state. The 2021 Karbi Anglong Agreement gave the council more powers instead (verify).

• Class 12 explains the choice: "It was not possible to go on making smaller and yet smaller States", so district councils were used instead.

• Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council: elected councils for Leh (1995) and Kargil (2003), with powers over local development and land use.
• Since 2019, Ladakh has been a UT without a legislature.
• The NCST recommended Sixth Schedule status in 2019, citing a tribal population of over 97%.
• The Apex Body Leh and the Kargil Democratic Alliance demand statehood and the Sixth Schedule.
• 2025 outcomes of the talks: 84% ST job reservation, one-third of hill council seats for women, Bhoti and Purgi as official languages, and domicile rules.
• Unrest followed: violence in Leh on 24 September 2025 and Sonam Wangchuk's detention under the National Security Act (verify current).

• Hurdle: Art. 244(2) covers only four states, so a constitutional amendment would be needed.

• Gorkhaland Territorial Administration: created by a tripartite agreement (18 July 2011) and a West Bengal Act of 2011, with elections in 2012. It replaced the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council (1988). It is not a Sixth Schedule body. The 2005 promise of Sixth Schedule status (Class 11 exercise) was never enacted.

• Other demands: Manipur's hill councils exist only under a state law (1971), and there is a Kuki-Zo demand for a separate administration. In Tripura, the Tipra Motha seeks "Greater Tipraland" (2024 tripartite agreement; verify).

---

Exam angles

Prelims — high-yield facts and traps

• Art. 371 series, article–state–amendment:
• 371A: Nagaland, 13th (1962)
• 371B: Assam, 22nd (1969)
• 371C: Manipur, 27th (1971)
• 371D-E: Andhra Pradesh, 32nd (1973)
• 371F: Sikkim, 36th (1975)
• 371G: Mizoram, 53rd (1986)
• 371H: Arunachal Pradesh, 55th (1986)
• 371I: Goa, 56th (1987)

• 371J: Karnataka, 98th (2012)

• Governor's "special responsibility":

• development boards: Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka;
• law and order: Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh;
• Hill Areas Committee: Manipur;

• peace and equitable advancement: Sikkim.

• Minimum assembly size: Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh and Goa 30; Mizoram 40.

• Land wording: Art. 371A protects "land and its resources"; Art. 371G protects only "land".
• "Himachal Pradesh has an Art. 371 clause": FALSE. It has Scheduled Areas only.
• Fifth vs Sixth Schedule: Art. 244(1) vs Art. 244(2); ten states vs four states with ten councils.
• Tribes Advisory Council: up to 20 members, three-fourths ST MLAs.
• Both Schedules are amended by ordinary law, not Art. 368.
• Parts IX and IXA do not apply to Sixth Schedule areas.

• The Tripura council came under the Sixth Schedule through the 49th Amendment (1984); Bodoland came in 2003.

• Committees and commissions:

• Bordoloi → Sixth Schedule; Thakkar → Fifth Schedule;
• Dhebar (1960-61) → criteria for Scheduled Areas;

• Bhuria Committee (1994-95) → PESA; Bhuria Commission (2002-04) → Art. 339.

• PESA (1996): ten states; all chairpersons STs; at least half the seats for STs; ownership of minor forest produce; gram sabha recommendation for minor-mineral leases.

• FRA (2006): cut-off 13 December 2005; 75 years of residence for other forest dwellers; up to 4 hectares; the gram sabha starts the claim process.
• Cases: Samatha (1997): government counts as a "person". Niyamgiri (2013): twelve gram sabhas rejected the project.
• J&K:
• Art. 35A came through the 1954 presidential order, not an Art. 368 amendment.
• C.O. 272 (5 August 2019) and C.O. 273 (6 August 2019); UTs from 31 October 2019.
• In re Article 370: 11 December 2023, five judges.

• "Art. 370's text was repealed": FALSE.

• Inner Line Permit: based on the Regulation of 1873; four states (Manipur since 2019). "Assam is an ILP state": FALSE.

• "Art. 244A was never used": FALSE. It was used for Meghalaya (1969-72).

Mains — GS-II themes

1. Asymmetric federalism: a tool of integration, or a source of resentment and copycat demands? Use comparative models and In re Article 370's "asymmetry, not sovereignty".
2. The 2019 J&K changes and federal principles: consent obtained during President's rule; Art. 3 and turning a state into a UT; restoring statehood.
3. The Fifth Schedule's unrealised promise: unused Governor's powers, weak Tribes Advisory Councils, uneven PESA rules, land alienation.
4. The Sixth Schedule as a peace tool (Mizoram, Bodoland) vs its governance gaps; the 125th Amendment Bill; the Ladakh and Manipur hill demands.
5. Gram sabha consent vs national development: Samatha, Niyamgiri, the FRA and the forest-law changes (GS-II with GS-III links).
6. The Inner Line Permit vs free movement, economic integration and citizenship politics.
7. Regional-equity clauses (371, 371D, 371J): do they reduce imbalance or only delay demands for new states?

Current-affairs hooks

• J&K: statehood restoration, friction between the Lieutenant Governor and the elected government, and related litigation (verify current).
• Ladakh: talks on the Sixth Schedule and statehood, the 2025 regulations, and the Leh unrest with Wangchuk's detention.
• Manipur and Nagaland: enforcing the Inner Line Permit, the Hill Areas Committee, Art. 371A disputes over urban-body reservation and a uniform civil code.
• PESA rules in Odisha and Jharkhand; the PESA Mahotsav; FRA claim figures and the eviction case; gram sabha consent for Great Nicobar and coal blocks.
• Bodo, Karbi and Tipra accords; the fate of the 125th Amendment Bill.