Constitution of India
Article 226A: Constitutional validity of Central laws not to be considered in proceedings under article 226
Part V — The Union (Chapter V — The High Courts)
Article 226A (single provision, no sub-clauses)
WHAT IT SAID (before repeal): Notwithstanding anything in Article 226, the High Court shall not consider the constitutional validity of any Central law in any proceedings under that article. WHAT IT MEANT: 1. High Courts were completely stripped of the power to examine whether any Central (Union) law violated the Constitution. 2. Only the Supreme Court (via Article 131A, also inserted by the 42nd Amendment) could adjudicate Central law validity. 3. Citizens lost the right to challenge Central laws at the regional High Court level — they had to approach the Supreme Court directly. 4. Article 226(1) was simultaneously amended to read 'subject to the provisions of Article 131A and Article 226A'. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Basic Structure — the repeal of Article 226A reaffirmed that judicial review by High Courts under Article 226 is a basic feature of the Constitution that Parliament cannot destroy.
Constitutional Inspiration
ORIGINAL INDIAN CONTRIBUTION: 1. Article 226A had no foreign model — it was a product of the Emergency-era executive overreach. 2. It was part of the Swaran Singh Committee recommendations (1976), which proposed restricting judicial review to strengthen Parliamentary supremacy. 3. No comparable constitutional system (UK, USA, Australia, Canada) bars regional/state courts from reviewing federal legislation. INDIA'S SPECIFIC CONTEXT: 1. Emergency (1975–1977) — The Indira Gandhi government sought to immunize Central laws from High Court scrutiny after adverse judicial rulings (e.g., Allahabad High Court's 1975 election ruling). 2. Legislature vs. Judiciary conflict — Post-Kesavananda Bharati (1973), Parliament attempted to curtail judicial power through the 42nd Amendment. 3. Its repeal (43rd Amendment, 1977) reaffirmed India's commitment to decentralized judicial review — a unique adaptation of both the American and British traditions.
Constituent Assembly Debate
NOT APPLICABLE. Article 226A was NOT part of the original Constitution drafted by the Constituent Assembly (1946–1949). KEY FACTS: 1. It was inserted by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 — nearly 27 years after the Constitution's adoption. 2. Therefore, there are NO Constituent Assembly Debates (CAD) records for this article. 3. The original Article 226 (writ jurisdiction of High Courts) was debated in the Constituent Assembly, but Article 226A was a later addition. PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE CONTEXT: 1. The 42nd Amendment Bill was introduced by Law Minister H.R. Gokhale on 1 September 1976 in Lok Sabha. 2. It was passed by Lok Sabha on 2 November 1976 and Rajya Sabha on 11 November 1976. 3. Most opposition leaders were in preventive detention during the Emergency — meaningful Parliamentary debate was absent. 4. President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed gave assent on 18 December 1976.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) — SC struck down Sections 4 and 55 of the 42nd Amendment as unconstitutional; reinforced that judicial review is part of the basic structure; though Article 226A was already repealed by then, the judgment condemned the 42nd Amendment's attempt to curtail judicial power. 2. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) — A 7-judge SC bench held that the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be curtailed or excluded even by constitutional amendment. 3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — Established the Basic Structure Doctrine; the 42nd Amendment (including Article 226A) was a direct legislative response to override this judgment. 4. Waman Rao v. Union of India (1981) — SC reaffirmed that constitutional amendments post-24 April 1973 are subject to basic structure review, validating the repeal of provisions like Article 226A. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. Justice P.N. Bhagwati in Minerva Mills (1980) — Partially dissented, arguing that the amended Article 31C (giving DPSP primacy) was valid, though he agreed with the majority on striking down Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. H.M. Seervai — Strongly criticized the 42nd Amendment as an attempt to destroy the independence of the judiciary and convert India into a totalitarian state. 2. Granville Austin — Described the 42nd Amendment as the most sweeping assault on the Constitution's democratic framework, noting that provisions like Article 226A represented a dangerous centralization of judicial power. 3. D.D. Basu — Observed that Article 226A, along with Articles 131A, 32A, and 228A, formed a coordinated scheme to dismantle the decentralized system of judicial review that was integral to Indian federalism.