Editor,
After the recent Supreme Court verdict in the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) and even earlier, in the Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker (2016), one thing is clear: governors in a parliamentary democracy are not supposed to act on their own. They must follow the advice of elected governments. And yet, in Arunachal Pradesh, Article 371H still allows our governor to act independently in matters of law and order.
This exception might have been justified in 1986, when we were a young state in a sensitive border region. But nearly 40 years later, it feels less like protection and more like control. Our law and order system – the very foundation of governance – is still not fully in our hands.
Let’s be clear: Article 371H doesn’t protect our customs, land, or culture. It doesn’t preserve tribal traditions or community rights like Article 371A does for Nagaland or 371G for Mizoram. Those articles say that no Act of Parliament will apply to key local matters unless the state assembly agrees. That’s real autonomy. That’s trust.
In contrast, 371H gives the governor “special responsibility” over law and order, and worse, his decisions can’t even be questioned in court. That’s not democratic. It’s not equal. And it’s not in line with the rest of the country.
The Supreme Court in Nabam Rebia (which came from our state) already warned what happens when governors start playing politics: constitutional crises, dismissed speakers, and a threat to democracy. Do we want to keep such a loophole open?
Our own state government has twice asked for Article 371H to be removed, not to weaken the state but to strengthen democracy. It wants to treat Arunachal like any other state in the union.
The question is simple: Why should our votes count for less? Why should an unelected governor have more power than our elected chief minister?
It’s time to revisit 371H – not out of rebellion, but out of a belief that Arunachal deserves the same democratic respect as the rest of India.
Mai Dol Camdir