Constituent Assembly Debates

Annotated Debate Record

Paragraph-by-Paragraph Analysis

Each paragraph of the Sixth Schedule as debated and adopted on 5–7 September 1949. Amendments, exchanges, and outcomes recorded in full. Click any paragraph to expand.

Paragraph 1 — Autonomous Districts and Autonomous Regions

5 September 1949 · Amendments No. 98, 99 moved by Ambedkar · pp. 1003–1008

Adopted

▼

Subject Matter: Para 1 defines "tribal areas" as those in the Table to Para 19, and gives the Governor power to define boundaries, create new autonomous districts, expand, diminish, unite, and define boundaries of existing ones. A Commission report (Para 14) is required before the more significant powers are exercised.

Amendment No. 98 — Ambedkar (Adopted)

"That in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1, before the words, 'The tribal areas' the words 'Subject to the provisions of this paragraph' be inserted."

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar · Bombay: General

Purpose: To make clear that identification of tribal areas in sub-para (1) was subject to the Governor's powers in sub-para (3) — the original draft gave no power to define boundaries beyond what was in the Table.

Amendment No. 99 — Ambedkar (Adopted)

Substituted a new sub-paragraph (3) giving the Governor power by public notification to: (a) include an area in Part I, (b) create a new autonomous district, (c) increase the area, (d) diminish the area, (e) unite two or more autonomous districts, (f) define boundaries. Commission report required before exercising (b)–(e).

"In this amendment, the new things to which attention must be drawn are included in sub-clauses (e) and (f) of sub-paragraph (3). That is necessary because it may be required, in any particular state of affairs, that two or more autonomous districts may be united together. The power contained in sub-clause (f) is also necessary because it may be desirable to define the boundaries in case there is any particular dispute between the different tribes."

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

Challenging Amendments — All Negatived

Mover	Proposal	Outcome
Shri Kuladhar Chaliha Assam: General	Delete the Commission proviso — Cabinet advice to Governor was sufficient, Commission would cause delay	Negatived
Shri Brajeshwar Prasad Bihar: General	Substitute "President" for "Governor" throughout Para 1; make Governor "agent of the President"	All 3 Negatived

Ambedkar's Key Reply

"It is quite obvious that in constituting the Commission, and defining its terms of reference, the Governor would be guided by the advice of the local ministers... The Drafting Committee has not forgotten that there are what are called certain 'frontier areas', bordering on the autonomous districts. So far as the administration of these frontier areas of Assam is concerned, the Governor would be acting under the President."

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Reply on Para 1 amendments

Paragraph 2 — Constitution of District and Regional Councils

5–6 September 1949 · Amendments No. 100–102 · pp. 1008–1016 · Ambedkar's major speech

Adopted as Amended

▼

Subject Matter: Para 2 establishes the composition of District Councils (not more than 30 members, up to 4 nominated by the Governor) and Regional Councils. Original draft had "not less than 20 and not more than 40 members."

Key Amendments by Ambedkar (All Adopted)

Amendment	Effect	Outcome
No. 100 — Sub-para (1)	Reduced maximum membership from 40 to "not more than twenty-four"	Adopted
No. 101 — Sub-para (2)	Deleted sub-paragraph (2) — delimitation of constituencies left to rules, not the Constitution	Adopted
No. 102 — Sub-para (7)	Added clause (dd): "the term of office of members of such Councils" — omitted from rule-making power	Adopted

Ambedkar's Philosophical Defence — The Core Speech

Para 2 prompted Ambedkar's most important speech of the entire three days — comparing three models of tribal governance:

American Model (Rejected)
Red Indian Reservations — separate territories, full exclusion. This failed: tribes were isolated from mainstream social life and cut off from national solidarity.

British Model (Rejected)
"Excluded Areas" under Govt. of India Act 1935 — the "museum approach" treating tribes as anthropological objects rather than citizens with self-governing capacity.

Sixth Schedule Model (Adopted) — Three binding unifying influences: (1) Assam's executive authority extends to tribal areas; (2) Parliament's and Assam's laws automatically apply unless the District Council otherwise provides; (3) Political authority through elected councils — not an external authority governing the tribes from outside.

"The thing which is a binding thing, to which honourable Members have paid no attention is this. That, barring such functions as law-making in certain specified fields such as money-lending, land and so on, the administration of the area is entirely in the hands of the District Council and the Regional Council. They are the executive authority."

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Para 2 general debate

The Chaliha Confrontation: Ambedkar publicly challenged Chaliha for moving amendments to provisions he had previously agreed to in drafting meetings. Chaliha denied this — saying he attended as an "adviser" to Bardoloi, not as a Drafting Committee member. The dispute revealed the gap between informal consensus-building and formal constitutional positions.

Paragraph 3 — Powers of Councils to Make Laws

6 September 1949 · Amendments No. 113, 114 · pp. 1017–1022

Adopted as Amended

▼

Subject Matter: Para 3 gives District and Regional Councils power to make laws on: allotment/use of land, management of unreserved forests, use of waterways, shifting cultivation, village/town councils, public health, money-lending to tribals, and trading by non-tribals. Laws require Governor's assent.

Chaliha's Radical Alternative (Negatived)

"The Governor shall make laws and regulations and entrust the District Council and Regional Councils with such powers as the State Legislature may approve."

Shri Kuladhar Chaliha — Amendment No. 113 (proposed substitute for Para 3)

Chaliha sought to strip Councils of inherent legislative power, replacing it with a delegated model. Ambedkar rejected this as fundamentally inconsistent with autonomous governance — if Councils had no original power, "autonomy" was illusory.

Amendment No. 114 — Ambedkar (Adopted)

Added sub-paragraph (3): "All laws made under this paragraph shall be submitted forthwith to the Governor and, until assented to by him, shall have no effect." This gave the Governor a review/veto power over Council legislation — balancing autonomy with oversight.

Mover	Proposal	Outcome
Chaliha (No. 113)	Replace Para 3 with Governor-delegated model	Negatived
Ambedkar (No. 114)	Add sub-para (3): Governor's assent required	Adopted
Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri	Laws to be placed before State Legislature, not just Governor	Negatived
Brajeshwar Prasad	"Governor" → "President" throughout Para 3	Negatived

Paragraph 4 — Administration of Justice in Autonomous Districts

6 September 1949 · High Court jurisdiction added · pp. 1022–1028

Adopted as Amended

▼

Subject Matter: Para 4 gives District/Regional Councils (or courts they constitute) jurisdiction over suits and cases between tribal parties. Original draft made Council decisions final in appeal. Ambedkar's amendments opened appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court.

Major Change — High Court Appellate Jurisdiction

"This amendment makes an important change. Originally under sub-para (2) of para 4 the decision of the District Court was final. Now we have provided that they shall be subject to appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court which will eliminate any infraction of fundamental rights."

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Para 4 debate

Tribal/Non-Tribal Jurisdiction Issue

Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri pressed: what happens when one party is tribal and the other is non-tribal? Ambedkar's answer: the tribal court's jurisdiction is limited to cases where "all parties belong to scheduled tribes." For mixed cases, ordinary courts apply.

Amendment	Effect	Outcome
No. 115 — Ambedkar	Delete redundant words "arising out of any law made under paragraph 3" from sub-para (1)	Adopted
No. 119 — Ambedkar	Add sub-para (3): High Court of Assam given appellate jurisdiction over tribal court decisions	Adopted
No. 118 — Chaudhuri	Amendment to an unadopted amendment — ruled out of order	Ruled Out

5–7

Paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 — Application of Laws, Primary Powers, Taxation

6 September 1949 · Para 5 adopted unamended; Paras 6–7 adopted without debate

Adopted

▼

Para 5 — Application of Acts: Deals with the application of Acts of Parliament and of the State Legislature to autonomous areas. Such Acts apply unless the District Council otherwise directs. The Governor may extend or restrict their application. Brajeshwar Prasad's "President for Governor" amendment ruled out as repetitive.

Key Principle: Parliament and State Legislature laws apply automatically to tribal areas but the District Council has power to direct their exclusion or modification. The Governor can extend or restrict application — always on Cabinet advice.

Para 6 — Primary Establishment Powers: Empowers District Councils to establish, construct, or manage primary schools, dispensaries, markets, ferries, fisheries, roads, and waterways within the autonomous district. Adopted without debate.

Para 7 — Taxation Powers: Gives Councils power to assess and collect land revenue and impose certain taxes (professions, trades, animals, vehicles, boats, entry of goods into markets). Adopted without debate.

Paragraph 8 — Rules for Assessment and Revenue

6 September 1949 · Chaliha amendment No. 123 negatived

Adopted Unamended

▼

Subject Matter: Para 8 gives the Governor power to lay down rules by which District/Regional Councils shall assess and collect land revenue and impose taxes.

Chaliha moved to replace Para 8 with a version requiring all such rules to be placed before the State Legislature first (Amendment No. 123). Negatived. Brajeshwar Prasad's amendment was ruled out as repetitive of the settled "Governor/President" principle.

Outcome: The Governor retains rule-making power over taxation in autonomous areas, acting on Cabinet advice — this is the form of state oversight over Council financial activities.

Paragraph 9 — Licence or Lease for Minerals

6 September 1949 · Sub-para (1) deleted by Ambedkar

Adopted as Amended

▼

Subject Matter: Para 9 originally provided that the District Council would share in royalties from mineral extraction licences in autonomous areas.

"That sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 be deleted. That paragraph refers to licence or lease granted by the Government of Assam for the prospecting for or the extraction of minerals. That matter now is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Union. Consequently the provision in sub-para (1) is inconsistent with the Union List under which this matter falls."

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Para 9

The mineral extraction subject had been moved to the Union List during final drafting stages, making Para 9(1) constitutionally inconsistent. Its deletion was uncontested.

Paragraph 10 — Power to Regulate Money-Lending and Trading

6 September 1949 · Most contentious Para 1–14 debate · pp. 1033–1040

Adopted as Amended

▼

Subject Matter: One of the Schedule's most protective provisions — giving District Councils power to regulate money-lending to tribal members, establishment of trading posts, licensing of traders, and ultimately to exclude non-tribal traders from autonomous areas entirely. Sub-paragraph (2)(d) — the most controversial — permitted the District Council to prescribe that only tribals may carry on trade in defined commodities within the district.

Chaliha's Objection

"Is it possible for any Assamese, Marwari, Sindhi, Punjabi or Sikh from the plains or from Bombay to carry on business in the Naga Hills if we have a rule like (d)? To say the least, this is an impossible provision."

Shri Kuladhar Chaliha — Para 10 objection

Chaliha moved to replace Para 10 with a simpler version giving the Governor (not the Council) power to regulate trading. Ambedkar rejected this, noting three safeguards: (1) laws must have the Governor's assent; (2) the Governor can withhold or annul assent; (3) Regulations under Para 10 are submitted to the Governor for review.

"There are three things provided by way of safeguards which my friend has not taken into consideration... You are like hungry David Copperfield asking for more gruel."

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Reply on Para 10

Amendment	Effect	Outcome
Chaliha No. 123	Replace Para 10 with Governor-only regulation model	Negatived
Ambedkar No. 124	Insert "In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power" before specific powers in sub-para (2)	Adopted
Ambedkar No. 125	Add sub-para (3): all regulations submitted to Governor; no effect until assented	Adopted

11–12

Paragraphs 11 & 12 — Grants & Financial Provisions

6 September 1949 · Adopted with minor technical amendment to Para 12

Adopted

▼

Para 11: Government of Assam shall make grants to District/Regional Councils in each financial year, with amounts determined by the Governor in consultation with the Council. Adopted without discussion.

Para 12: Application of financial provisions of the Constitution to autonomous areas. Brajeshwar Prasad's two "President for Governor" amendments ruled out. Technical drafting amendment adopted.

Paragraph 13 — Legislation Affecting Tribal Areas

6 September 1949 · Amendment No. 130 adopted · pp. 1041–1043

Adopted as Amended

▼

Subject Matter: Before the Legislature of Assam passes any law affecting an autonomous district or region, the Bill shall be referred to the District Council for discussion. Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri moved Amendment No. 130 — requiring Bills to be "first placed before the District Council for discussion and then after such discussion" before passage. Ambedkar accepted it as a matter of practical expression (though he considered the existing text sufficient).

Result: Bills affecting tribal areas in Assam must be placed before District Councils for discussion before being passed. This creates a formal consultative role for the Councils in the State legislative process.

Paragraph 14 — Commission to Inquire into Autonomous Districts

6 September 1949 · Most complex debate of the three days · pp. 1043–1055

Adopted as Amended

▼

Subject Matter: Authorises the Governor to appoint a Commission to inquire into and report on the administration of autonomous districts. Terms of reference: (a) provision of educational and medical facilities and communications, (b) need for new legislation, (c) administration of laws and rules made by the Councils.

The Scope Dispute

The most procedurally intricate debate of the three days centred on whether Para 14's Commission terms of reference covered the same ground as the Governor's powers in Para 1(3). Krishnamachari resolved this by drawing attention to Amendment No. 134's cross-reference language.

"If the honourable Member will please look at amendment No. 134, which wants the inclusion of the words 'including matters specified in clauses (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 1 of this Schedule' after the words 'autonomous districts in the State' in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 14 then he will find the object that he has in mind has already been served by this amendment."

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari — Para 14 debate

Kunzru's Constitutional Concern

If the Governor could recommend exclusion of an area from tribal areas (requiring a Parliamentary statute) without a Commission report, Parliament would act without independent evidence. Ambedkar: Parliament was free to appoint its own Commission. Kunzru's concern was acknowledged as valid but resolved in principle.

Chaudhuri — Elected Commission Members

Chaudhuri urged that at least two Commission members be elected by the State Legislature. Ambedkar rejected mandatory election but noted the Governor was "not prevented from doing so." Amendment defeated — but the exchange established political expectation of elected representation on the Commission.

Amendment	Effect	Outcome
Ambedkar — No. 134	Added Para 1(3)(b)–(e) matters to Commission terms; added "autonomous regions" throughout	Adopted
Brajeshwar Prasad — Full substitute	Enlarged Commission scope; required High Court judges and academics as members	Negatived
Chaliha — Add clause (d)	Resolved by Krishnamachari's reference to Amendment 134	Withdrawn
Chaudhuri — Elected members	Two members to be elected by State Legislature	Negatived

Paragraph 15 — Removal of Governor's Explicit Discretion

7 September 1949 · Sub-para (3) deleted · pp. 1055–1057

Adopted as Amended

▼

Subject Matter: Para 15 originally gave the Governor certain explicitly discretionary powers. Ambedkar moved to delete sub-paragraph (3) which contained the most significant of these.

"As I have said we are taking away the discretion from the Governor which we had originally laid with him and it is therefore necessary to delete this sub-para (3)."

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Para 15

This was part of a broader move in the final stages of Constitution-drafting to reduce explicit Governor's discretion throughout the text, ensuring "Governor" throughout the Schedule means the Governor acting on Cabinet advice.

Consequence: After this deletion, the only explicit discretionary function left to the Governor under the Sixth Schedule related to frontier areas (Para 17) — where he acts as agent of the President. All other functions are on Cabinet advice.

Paragraph 16 — Dissolution of District/Regional Councils

7 September 1949 · Chaliha–Bardoloi compromise · pp. 1057–1060

Adopted as Amended

▼

Subject Matter: Para 16 gives the Governor power to dissolve a District or Regional Council and direct a fresh general election. The second proviso required that no dissolution action be taken without a hearing before the State Legislature.

The Chaliha–Bardoloi Compromise

Chaliha moved to delete the second proviso as procedurally cumbersome. Bardoloi offered a compromise: give the Council an opportunity to be heard by the Legislature. Ambedkar accepted for the Drafting Committee. The proviso was amended to read: "no action shall be taken under clause (b) of this paragraph without giving the District or the Regional Council, as the case may be, an opportunity of being heard by the Legislature of the State."

"All that I have to say is that in every case where action of this kind is involved, the Government of Assam will certainly give the District Councils an opportunity of explaining their views."

Shri Gopinath Bardoloi — Para 16 compromise

16-A

New Paragraph 16-A — Exclusion from Constituencies (Elections)

7 September 1949 · Added entirely new by Ambedkar · p. 1060

Adopted

▼

Subject Matter: An entirely new provision allowing areas within autonomous districts to be excluded from the tribal constituency for legislative assembly elections — allowing non-tribal inhabitants to vote in a general constituency rather than only a tribal one.

Significance: Para 16-A directly addressed the Shillong and Dimapur debates in Para 19 — ensuring that non-tribal residents of autonomous districts are not compelled to exercise their franchise exclusively in tribal constituencies. It was a middle-ground solution that addressed concerns about non-tribal economic communities without excluding their districts from Schedule protection.

Paragraph 17 — Frontier Areas (Governor as Agent of President)

7 September 1949 · Ambedkar adds sub-para (3) · pp. 1060–1063

Adopted as Amended

▼

Subject Matter: Para 17 deals with "tribal areas" in Part II of the Table — the frontier tracts (Balipara, Tirap, Abor Hills, Mishmi Hills, and the Naga Tribal Area). In these areas the Governor acts as agent of the President — directly under Central authority, not on Assam Cabinet advice.

"That after sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 17 the following sub-paragraph be added:- (3) In the discharge of his functions under sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph as the agent of the President, the Governor shall act in accordance with such directions as the President may from time to time give."

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Para 17 amendment (adopted)

Strategic Significance: Para 17 was Ambedkar's answer to the national security argument. Frontier areas bordering Pakistan, China, Tibet, and Burma were placed under effective Central control. Inner autonomous areas remained under Assam's governance with elected District Councils. This bifurcation resolved the tension between tribal self-governance and strategic oversight of the border.

Paragraph 18 — Transitional Provisions

7 September 1949 · "In his discretion" deleted · p. 1063

Adopted as Amended

▼

Para 18 contains transitional provisions for existing arrangements until new District Councils are constituted. Originally contained the phrase "in his discretion" in line 22, and an entire clause (c). Ambedkar moved two amendments: deleting "in his discretion" (Amendment 146) and deleting clause (c) (Amendment 147). Both were consistent with the overall project of removing explicit Governor's discretion from the Schedule. Both adopted without discussion.

Paragraph 19 — The Table of Tribal Areas (Most Debated of All)

7 September 1949 · Shillong · Dimapur · Mylliem · Kunzru's structural objection · pp. 1063–1099

Adopted as Amended · Longest Debate

▼

Subject Matter: Para 19 contains the definitive Table of Tribal Areas. Ambedkar's Amendment No. 331 substituted an entirely new Para 19 and Table with two parts:

Part I — Autonomous Districts
The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills District · The Garo Hills District · The Lushai Hills District · The Naga Hills District · The North Cachar Hills · The Mikir Hills District

Part II — Frontier Areas
North-East Frontier Tract including Balipara Frontier Tract, Tirap Frontier Tract, Abor Hills District, Mishmi Hills District · The Naga Tribal Area

The Shillong Municipality Controversy

The most prolonged exchange of the three days concerned whether any portion of Shillong Municipality — Assam's capital, located within the Khasi Hills district — should fall within the United Khasi-Jaintia Hills autonomous district. Ambedkar's amendment excluded the cantonment and municipality of Shillong but included "so much of the area comprised within such municipality as forms part of the Mylliem State."

Chaudhuri accused Ambedkar of "camouflage." The President ruled there was "no question of camouflage" as the paragraph was clear. Bardoloi gave the authoritative account: over half of Shillong's land area was owned by Khasis — making wholesale exclusion inappropriate.

"It is very necessary for us to understand the real position of the town of Shillong. It is there that more than half of its area is occupied not by non-tribal people but by tribal people. The bulk of the land belongs to Khasis."

Shri Gopinath Bardoloi — Para 19, Shillong question

The Dimapur Mouza Question

Chaliha moved to exclude the Mouza of Dimapur from the Naga Hills District — Dimapur was inhabited almost entirely by non-tribal people who had invested heavily in business there. He gave a detailed historical account tracing Dimapur's origins from Kachari Kingdom through Ahom rule, ending up under the Naga Hills DC by administrative accident.

"Now, Sir, it is a prosperous state where you find Assamese, Bengalees, Sindhis, Punjabees, Sikhs, Marwaris doing business after having invested crores of rupees; but do you know their fate? They can be ejected in 24 hours bag and baggage."

Shri Kuladhar Chaliha — Dimapur mouza amendment

Bardoloi opposed on practical grounds: the boundary was not precisely defined and any exclusion would create disputed boundary questions. Ambedkar noted the matter could be handled by the Governor under Para 1(3)(d) after a Commission report. Chaliha's amendment was negatived.

Pandit Kunzru's Structural Objection (Negatived)

Kunzru proposed a tripartite table (Parts I, IA, and II) — maintaining the colonial distinction between "fully excluded" and "partially excluded" areas. Bardoloi's decisive response: the Sixth Schedule precisely abandoned this old distinction, and Kunzru's amendment would perpetuate what the Schedule was designed to end.

"The arrangement made in the Sixth Schedule makes a departure from the old arrangement and practically does away with the distinction between fully excluded and partially excluded areas."

Shri Gopinath Bardoloi — Opposing Kunzru's amendment

Dramatis Personae

Key Speakers in the Debates

Twelve members played substantive roles across the three days. Their interventions ranged from technical drafting amendments to fundamental constitutional philosophy.

BRA

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Law Minister, Principal Drafter

Bombay: General · Moved 18+ amendments · All three days · Pages 1003–1099

▼

Ambedkar was the architect, defender, and pragmatic adjuster of the Sixth Schedule on the floor of the Assembly. He moved 18+ amendments on behalf of the Drafting Committee, responded to all substantive challenges, and delivered the schedule's most important intellectual justification in the Para 2 debate.

Central contribution: The three-model comparison — Red Indian reservations (rejected), British excluded areas (rejected), Sixth Schedule autonomous district model (adopted) — and the articulation of three binding unifying influences that prevented the autonomous districts from becoming separate republics.

"The first thing that we have done is this: That we have provided that the executive authority of the Government of Assam shall extend not merely to non-tribal areas in Assam but also to the tribal areas. This, as will be seen, is a great improvement over the provisions contained in the Government of India Act, 1935."

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar — Para 2 general debate

The Chaliha confrontation: Ambedkar publicly challenged Chaliha for moving amendments to provisions he had previously agreed to in drafting meetings: "I am not making any insinuations; I was only saying, Sir, that it was a domestic quarrel into which I would not enter." Chaliha denied participation in the Drafting Committee. The dispute was never formally resolved.

The David Copperfield quip (Para 10): When members pressed him for more safeguards against non-tribal trading restrictions, Ambedkar responded — "I know you want something more than what I can give. You are like hungry David Copperfield asking for more gruel." — a rare moment of public wit in the Assembly.

Shri Gopinath Bardoloi — Premier of Assam

Assam: General · Chair, Bordoloi Sub-Committee · 5 & 7 September 1949

▼

Bardoloi was the political authority whose endorsement underpinned the Sixth Schedule's legitimacy. He had chaired the Sub-Committee on North-East Frontier (Assam) Tribal and Excluded Areas whose report formed the basis of the Schedule. His Assembly interventions were measured but decisive.

On Kunzru's amendment: Bardoloi delivered the definitive argument against maintaining the old excluded/partially-excluded distinction: since 1947 both categories had been administered by the provincial government without deterioration. The distinction served no further purpose once the new autonomous district framework was in place.

On Dimapur: Bardoloi expressed "the fullest sympathy" for Chaliha's case but opposed excision on practical grounds — undefined boundaries would create disputes. He suggested the mechanisms of Para 1(3) and Para 16-A already provided sufficient remedies. He also confirmed at the Conference stage that Chaliha himself had agreed to this approach.

"With reference to the amendment that has been tabled by Mr Chaliha, we have the fullest sympathy. The Advisory Sub-committee for the tribal areas had investigated into this affair. It is quite true that for administrative reasons only about 35 years ago this area of Dimapur was brought under Naga Hill administration."

Shri Gopinath Bardoloi — Para 19 debate on Dimapur

Shri Kuladhar Chaliha — Most Active Challenger

Assam: General · 6 amendments moved · All three days · Pages 1003–1099

▼

Chaliha was the Assembly member who most consistently challenged the Drafting Committee's proposals — though from a position different from Brajeshwar Prasad. Where Prasad wanted centralisation under the President, Chaliha wanted a different balance within Assam: less Commission bureaucracy, more direct Governor (Cabinet) action; weaker District Council legislative powers; stronger protection for non-tribal economic interests.

Amendments moved: Para 1 (delete Commission proviso — negatived), Para 3 (replace Council legislative power with Governor delegation — negatived), Para 8 (Legislature approval for taxation rules — negatived), Para 10 (replace Council regulation power — negatived), Para 16 (delete second proviso — resulted in compromise with Bardoloi), Para 19 (Dimapur exclusion and Shillong exclusion — both negatived).

"A Governor means of course the Cabinet. I do not want a Commission. The Governor would have the power in consultation with his Cabinet to discuss these things and if it is left to a Commission there will be obvious delay."

Shri Kuladhar Chaliha — Para 1 debate, Commission proviso

Chaliha on Dimapur: He gave a detailed historical account drawing on Gait's History of Assam, traced Dimapur from the Kachari Kingdom through Ahom rule to its incorporation into Naga Hills by what he described as an administrative accident during British rule. He had himself served as a Magistrate at Golaghat and knew the area personally.

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad — Centralisation Advocate

Bihar: General · 15+ amendments moved · 5 & 6 September 1949

▼

Brajeshwar Prasad offered the most radical alternative to the Sixth Schedule framework — full Central administration of all tribal areas. His primary argument was geo-strategic: Assam bordered Pakistan, China, Tibet, and Burma, and the tribal hill districts were militarily and politically sensitive. Provincial administration could not be trusted with these frontier responsibilities.

"I am opposed to handing over the administration of the tribal areas into the hands of the provincial government, because Assam is on the border of five or six foreign States. Sir, in Assam, the conflicts between the Ahoms, and the Assamese, the Bengalees and the Muslims and the Mongoloid races have assumed proportions of which probably we the members of the House are not fully aware."

Shri Brajeshwar Prasad — Para 1 debate

Ambedkar's response: Para 17 already provided Central control over frontier areas. Wholesale centralisation would create a constitutional anomaly — a province with portions under direct Central rule alongside portions under provincial governance. All of Prasad's amendments ("President" for "Governor" throughout) were consistently negatived. He ultimately chose not to even move his Para 14 amendments after the President indicated they would be ruled out as repetitive.

Rev. J.J.M. Nichols Roy — Khasi Hills, Key Background Figure

Assam: General · Co-author of Schedule · Bordoloi Sub-Committee member

▼

Nichols Roy was one of the principal co-authors of the Schedule — having participated alongside Bardoloi in the Sub-Committee on Tribal Areas and in the negotiations with the Drafting Committee. His role on the Assembly floor was modest (few direct speeches recorded) but his background authority was considerable.

Ambedkar specifically invoked Nichols Roy's agreement with the Schedule on multiple occasions as evidence of its legitimacy as an agreed instrument — particularly to counter Chaliha's amendments, which Ambedkar presented as inconsistent with the prior consensus. When Kunzru raised the Shillong municipality question, it was Bardoloi who reminded the Assembly that Nichols Roy had signed the Tribal Areas Committee report — meaning the Committee's own position (no change to Shillong Municipality limits) had to be weighed against the Drafting Committee's different proposal.

Shri B. Das (Orissa) controversially suggested that Nichols Roy "wants the tribal areas to be a separate entity so that British influence could permeate these tribal areas" — an allegation Ambedkar did not address directly, merely saying foreign influence could be "eliminated altogether."

Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri — Procedural & Judicial Critic

Assam: General · All three days · Persistent questioner on Para 4, 10, 13, 14, 19

▼

Chaudhuri was the most legally technical of the Assam members — repeatedly pressing Ambedkar for precision on the interaction between tribal court jurisdiction and ordinary courts, on the electoral consequences of the Shillong proviso, and on the Commission composition. He was often dismissed by Ambedkar but his questions identified genuine ambiguities.

Most significant contribution: Amendment No. 130 (Para 13) requiring Bills affecting tribal areas to be "first placed before the District Council for discussion and then after such discussion" before being passed — adopted.

Para 4 — Tribal/Non-Tribal Jurisdiction: Chaudhuri pressed for clarity on what happens when one party is tribal and the other non-tribal in a dispute. Ambedkar answered that the tribal court's jurisdiction is ousted in such cases — ordinary courts apply. Chaudhuri found this insufficiently explicit and pressed for a textual provision. Ambedkar considered it unnecessary as it "follows from" the text.

"I stand corrected. If Dr Ambedkar does not practise camouflage, he would not be a good fighter. But, what I thought was that certain honourable Members may be misled as I was misled by what he had stated in his proviso."

Shri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri — Para 19, Shillong debate (retracting "camouflage" charge)

Pandit Hirday Nath Kunzru — Structural Critic

United Provinces: General · 7 September 1949 · Para 14 and Para 19 debates

▼

Kunzru offered the most intellectually substantive structural critique — not opposition to tribal self-governance but a concern that the Schedule created an unnecessary segregation of the more-advanced "partially excluded" areas (Khasi Hills, Garo Hills, Mikir Hills) alongside the genuinely "excluded" ones (Naga Hills, Lushai Hills). His proposed Part IA in the Table would have maintained a distinct, lighter governance regime for areas that already had some democratic contact with plains administration.

On Para 14 (Commission): Kunzru raised the sharpest constitutional question: if the Commission's role is advisory to the Governor, and the Governor can recommend Parliamentary action without a Commission report, Parliament might act entirely without independent evidence. Ambedkar's answer (Parliament can appoint its own Commission) was acknowledged as technically correct but politically unsatisfying.

"However good the provisions of the Sixth Schedule might seem, they segregate people living in different districts and thus make unity much more difficult. I feel the same difficulty in connection with the inclusion of what were partially excluded areas before in the table placed before us by Dr Ambedkar."

Pandit H.N. Kunzru — Para 19 debate

Shri Jaipal Singh — Only Adivasi Member of the CA

Bihar: General · Fifth Schedule primarily · Moral foundation of the debates

▼

Jaipal Singh was the sole Adivasi member of the Constituent Assembly — a former captain of India's Olympic field hockey team and leader of the Adivasi party. His primary interventions were on the Fifth Schedule (tribal advisory councils, scheduled areas). He moved five amendments to the Fifth Schedule, all negatived or withdrawn.

"I find that this new proposed Fifth Schedule has, somehow or other, perhaps without meaning it, emasculated the Tribes Advisory Council. The whole pattern of the original draft was to bring the Tribes Advisory Council into action. It could initiate, originate things, but, somehow or other, the tables have now been turned. The initiative is placed in the hands of the Governor or Ruler of the State. I regret that that is a situation I cannot accept."

Shri Jaipal Singh — Fifth Schedule debate

His significance was less in the outcomes he achieved than in the moral weight he gave to the demand for effective rather than merely formal tribal governance. He consistently argued that the Advisory Council needed real power of initiative — not merely the power to be consulted when the Governor chose.

Shri K.M. Munshi — Philosophical Defender

Bombay: General · Pages 999–1001 · Nagaland/general tribal governance

▼

Munshi delivered the most philosophically comprehensive defence of the framework — situating it within a theory of managed integration that rejected both permanent segregation and forced assimilation. His formulation of the twin goals of tribal protection became the canonical statement of the Schedule's purpose.

"We want that the Scheduled tribes in the whole country should be protected from the destructive compact of races possessing a higher and more aggressive culture and should be encouraged to develop their own autonomous life; at the same time we want them to take a larger part in the life of the country. They should not be isolated communities or little republics to be perpetuated for ever."

Shri K.M. Munshi — General tribal debate

On the Naga Hills specifically, Munshi argued that the Sixth Schedule's autonomous district model — with its wide legislative, judicial, and administrative powers — provided the best available constitutional accommodation for peoples with distinct governance traditions, short of outright sovereignty.

Shri A.V. Thakkar (Thakkar Bapa)

Saurashtra · Gandhi's tribal welfare worker · Pages 989–991

▼

Known as "Thakkar Bapa," A.V. Thakkar was the leading non-tribal advocate for tribal welfare in the Assembly. He provided the most vivid empirical account of conditions in the hill areas — including his first-ever visit to the Lushai Hills and Naga Hills in 1947 as part of the Assam Tribal Committee.

"I will give you only one instance. When I went with the Assam Tribal Committee to tour in the areas of Assam with the Chairman Mr. Gopinath Bardolai and the prominent Minister Rev. Nichols Roy all the members of the Committee, one and all, went for the first time to the Lushai Hills and Naga Hills in the year 1947. Even the Premier of Assam had never visited the Lushai Hills and Naga Hills, much less a man like me."

Shri A.V. Thakkar (Thakkar Bapa)

His intervention highlighted the profound ignorance among plainspeople about conditions in the hill districts — reinforcing the case for autonomous governance by people with direct knowledge of local conditions. He also corrected Ambedkar's use of "tribals" by interjecting "Hill tribals please" — a terminological point Ambedkar accepted for the purposes of the Assam discussion.

Shri T.T. Krishnamachari — Drafting Committee, Procedural Interventions

Madras: General · Brief but decisive interventions · Pages 1004, 1035, 1044

▼

Krishnamachari's interventions were brief but often procedurally decisive. In the Para 14 debate, he resolved Chaliha's query about Commission terms of reference by pointing to Amendment No. 134 and its cross-reference to Para 1(3). In the Para 19 Kunzru debate, he interjected "Bar one!" — pointing out that Kunzru's characterisation of the areas as "practically speaking" entirely within the original Table was inaccurate. He consistently defended the drafting precision of the Committee's text against challenges premised on misreading. In the Para 5 debate, he noted that Ambedkar had already addressed the question raised by amendment No. 263 in the previous paragraph — a characteristic shortcut that moved proceedings along efficiently.

The Making of the Sixth Schedule

Paragraph-by-Paragraph Analysis

Key Speakers in the Debates

All Amendments — 5 to 7 September 1949

State-wise Debate Coverage

Judicial Reception of the Debates

No.	Para	Mover	Substance	Result
98	1(1)	Ambedkar	Add "Subject to the provisions of this paragraph" before "The tribal areas" — enables Governor's boundary power in sub-para (3) to qualify the identification of tribal areas in sub-para (1)	Adopted
99	1(3)	Ambedkar	Substitute new sub-para (3): Governor's powers by public notification to include, create, increase, diminish, unite districts and define boundaries; Commission report required before (b)–(e)	Adopted
—	1(3)	Chaliha	Delete the proviso requiring Commission report before creating/merging autonomous districts — Cabinet advice to Governor was sufficient	Negatived
—	1	Brajeshwar Prasad	Substitute "President" for "Governor" throughout Para 1 — effectively making tribal areas a centrally administered territory	Negatived
—	1	Brajeshwar Prasad	Make Governor "agent of the President" in Para 1 functions — same objective as above from a different angle	Negatived
100	2(1)	Ambedkar	Reduce maximum members from 40 to "not more than twenty-four" — original number considered too large for effective administration	Adopted
101	2(2)	Ambedkar	Delete sub-paragraph (2) — delimitation of constituencies to be left to rules, not the Constitution itself	Adopted
102	2(7)	Ambedkar	Add clause (dd): "the term of office of members of such Councils" — correction of omission from rule-making powers in sub-para (7)	Adopted
257	2(1)	Unnamed member	Limit total Council membership to 15 — rejected as unnecessary given Ambedkar's amendment already set maximum at 24	Negatived
113	3	Chaliha	Replace Para 3's inherent Council legislative power with Governor-delegated model: "Governor shall make laws and entrust Councils with such powers as the State Legislature may approve"	Negatived
114	3(3) new	Ambedkar	Add sub-para (3): "All laws made under this paragraph shall be submitted forthwith to the Governor and until assented to by him shall have no effect" — Governor's veto over Council legislation	Adopted
—	3(3)	Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri	Substitute: laws to be placed before State Legislature, not just Governor — Legislature must agree before law takes effect	Negatived
—	3	Brajeshwar Prasad	"Governor" → "President" in Para 3 — same centralisation argument as throughout	Negatived
115	4(1)	Ambedkar	Delete "or those arising out of any law made under paragraph 3 of this Schedule" from sub-para (1) — redundant words	Adopted
119	4(2)+(3) new	Ambedkar	Open appeals to High Court (substituting "except the High Court and the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction" for "decision shall be final"); add sub-para (3) giving High Court of Assam specified appellate jurisdiction	Adopted
118	4	Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri	Amendment to an unadopted amendment (No. 3496) — ruled out of order by the President as it had no place without the parent amendment	Ruled Out
263	5	Sahu	Add sub-para (4): tribal/non-tribal trials to follow CPC 1908 and CrPC 1890 — addressed by Ambedkar's Para 4 answer; negatived	Negatived
201	8	Chaliha	Replace Para 8: "Governor shall lay down rules and place them before the State Legislature" — rejected as requiring Legislature approval for all taxation rules	Negatived
—	9(1)	Ambedkar	Delete sub-para (1) of Para 9 — mineral extraction now under Union List; provision constitutionally inconsistent	Adopted
123	10	Chaliha	Replace Para 10 entirely: "Governor shall make regulations to control money-lending and trading in the tribal areas" — removes District Council's power to regulate non-tribal trading	Negatived
124	10(2)	Ambedkar	Insert "In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may" — drafting clarification preserving full generality of regulation power	Adopted
125	10(3) new	Ambedkar	Add sub-para (3): "All regulations made under this paragraph shall be submitted forthwith to the Governor and, until assented to by him, shall have no effect"	Adopted
130	13	Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri	Insert "be first placed before the District Council for discussion and then after such discussion" — Bills affecting tribal areas must go to District Council before State Legislature passes them	Adopted
134	14(1)	Ambedkar	Include Para 1(3)(b)–(e) matters in Commission's terms of reference; add "and autonomous regions" throughout Para 14 — ensures Commission can consider boundary changes	Adopted
—	14	Brajeshwar Prasad	Substitute Para 14: Governor as agent of President, Commission of 7+ members (3 tribal, rest from academia/judiciary), enlarged scope including cultural and religious facilities	Negatived
—	14(1)	Chaliha	Add clause (d) on inclusion/exclusion of any tribal area from any District or Regional Council — resolved by Krishnamachari pointing to Amendment 134; Chaliha withdrew	Withdrawn
—	14(1)	Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri	Proviso: State Legislature to be represented by two elected members on the Commission — Ambedkar: Governor not prevented but election cannot be made mandatory	Negatived
—	15(3)	Ambedkar	Delete sub-para (3) of Para 15 — removes explicit Governor's discretionary powers; consistent with overall project of dropping "in his discretion" throughout Schedule	Adopted
143	16 (2nd proviso)	Chaliha / Bardoloi compromise	Substitute second proviso: "no action shall be taken under clause (b) without giving the Council an opportunity of placing their views before the legislature of the State" — weaker than original hearing requirement but stronger than Chaliha's deletion proposal	Compromise Adopted
16-A new	After Para 16	Ambedkar	Insert entirely new Para 16-A: Governor may declare that any area within an autonomous district shall not form part of the reserved tribal constituency but the general constituency — protects non-tribal residents' electoral rights	Adopted
—	17(3) new	Ambedkar	Add sub-para (3): "In the discharge of his functions under sub-paragraph (2) as the agent of the President, the Governor shall act in his discretion" — frontier areas under direct Presidential authority	Adopted
—	17(2)	Brajeshwar Prasad	Extend Presidential-agent model to ALL tribal areas (not just frontier Part II) — final iteration of centralisation argument; negatived	Negatived
146	18	Ambedkar	Delete "in his discretion" from line 22 of Para 18 — part of systematic removal of Governor's explicit discretion	Adopted
147	18(c)	Ambedkar	Delete clause (c) of Para 18 — removes Governor's discretionary transitional power	Adopted
331	19 + Table	Ambedkar	Substitute entirely new Para 19 and Table: Parts I and II, with special provisions for Khasi-Jaintia Hills (Shillong Municipality/Mylliem State proviso), references to para 19(3) and provisional frontier area inclusion	Adopted
—	19 Table / Para 1	Chaliha	Add "except the mouza of Dimapur" after "The Naga Hills District" in Part I Table — excise non-tribal commercial town from autonomous district jurisdiction	Negatived
—	19(2)	Chaliha / Chaudhuri	Delete "but including so much of the area comprised within the municipality of Shillong as formed part of the Khasi State of Mylliem" — exclude entire Shillong Municipality from autonomous district	Negatived
330/332/333	19 + Table	Pandit Kunzru	Create Part IA for partially-excluded areas (Khasi-Jaintia, Garo, Mikir Hills); insert new Para 16.4 for Part IA with lighter governance regime preserving 1935 Act protections for more-advanced areas	Negatived