The debate over the adoption of the National Highways Act, 1956 in Nagaland has once again brought into focus the delicate balance between constitutional safeguards and developmental urgency. Since 2025, the state government made sustained efforts to tilt the balance in favour of adopting the Act. Beginning May 6, Deputy Chief Minister TR Zeliang led high level discussions, highlighting uniformity, enhanced compensation provisions, and faster infrastructure development as potential benefits.
At the district level, deliberations have been equally serious. In Phek, the District Planning and Development Board discussed the matter before resolving on February 13 that the Act was not acceptable under the protections of Article 371A. In Zunheboto, discussions were also held in November 2025, weighing higher compensation and transparency against constitutional concerns, though no conclusive decision was reached. The issue has clearly not been dismissed lightly, but examined from multiple angles.
The reality, however, appears evident. The National Highways Act is unlikely to be implemented in Nagaland in its present form.
The question, therefore, is no longer whether the Act should be adopted. The more important question is whether Article 371A can be used as a tool to accelerate national highway development rather than slow it down.
Article 371A protects Naga customary law and ownership of land and its resources. It gives Nagaland a unique constitutional position. But constitutional protection was never meant to translate into administrative paralysis. If the state retains land acquisition powers under its special provisions, it must also assume responsibility for ensuring timely acquisition, fair compensation, and transparency.
If Nagaland chooses not to adopt the central framework, it must replicate or improve upon its standards within its own legal system. That requires a modernized state land acquisition mechanism aligned with current market realities, structured consultations with tribal bodies at the pre-notification stage, and legally time bound procedures to prevent project delays.
Article 371A should be interpreted as empowering Nagaland to design a locally sensitive yet efficient acquisition model. With political will and institutional clarity, it can become a bridge to progress rather than a barrier to it.