Constitution of India
Article 247: Power of Parliament to provide for the establishment of certain additional courts
Part XI — Relations between the Union and the States (Chapter I — Legislative Relations: Distribution of Legislative Powers)
Article 247 (single clause — no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, Parliament may by law provide for the establishment of any additional courts for the better administration of laws made by Parliament or of any existing laws with respect to a matter enumerated in the Union List. WHAT IT MEANS: 1. Parliament can create specialised or additional courts beyond the existing Supreme Court and High Court hierarchy. 2. These courts must serve the purpose of 'better administration' of Parliamentary laws or existing laws on Union List subjects. 3. The non obstante clause ('Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter') gives overriding effect over other provisions in Chapter I of Part XI. 4. State legislatures are NOT barred from establishing courts — Article 247 only grants an additional power to Parliament, it does not create an exclusive monopoly. 5. Parliament may use State court machinery to enforce Union laws; this article is a supplement, not a substitute. KEY DOCTRINE: 1. Non Obstante Doctrine — The opening override clause ensures Parliament can act even where court establishment might ordinarily fall within State domain. 2. Concurrent Competence Doctrine — After the 42nd Amendment (1976), Entry 11-A of List III (Concurrent List) also empowers States to constitute courts, so Article 247 is not the sole source of power.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. United States Constitution — Article III, Section 1 Original provision: Congress may 'from time to time ordain and establish' inferior federal courts below the Supreme Court. What India kept: The idea that the legislature (Parliament) has discretion to create additional courts for enforcing central/union laws. 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — General federal legislative framework (Sections 99-100, 7th Schedule) Original provision: The 1935 Act distributed legislative subjects into Federal, Provincial, and Concurrent Lists, with implied federal court-creation power. What India kept: The three-list legislative distribution system and the principle of Parliamentary authority over Union List subjects. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. India did NOT adopt the dual-court system of the USA — Instead of separate federal and state courts, India uses an integrated judiciary where State courts also enforce Union laws. Article 247 is a safety valve for cases where Parliament needs dedicated additional courts. 2. Non obstante clause — Unlike the US model, India explicitly overrides other Chapter I provisions to prevent jurisdictional conflict. 3. Scope limited to 'better administration' — Parliament must justify the creation of additional courts as improving administration, not merely for expanding federal reach. 4. No provision existed in the Government of India Act, 1935 equivalent to Article 247 — The Constituent Assembly introduced this as an original Indian contribution to ensure the integrated judiciary could be supplemented when needed for specialised Union law subjects.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 13 June 1949 (CAD Volume VIII) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 219 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Shri T.T. Krishnamachari (Madras) — Presented the article on behalf of the Drafting Committee without proposing changes. 2. Mr. President (Dr. Rajendra Prasad) — Put the question: 'That article 219 stand part of the Constitution.' MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. None recorded — There was no substantive debate on this Draft Article. 2. Amendment No. 2749 was listed but was NOT moved by any member. FINAL OUTCOME: 1. The motion was adopted without discussion. 2. Draft Article 219 was added to the Constitution as-is. 3. It was later renumbered as Article 247 in the final Constitution. CONTEXT NOTE: On the same day, the adjacent Draft Article 218 was DELETED as the Drafting Committee considered it unnecessary. Draft Articles 220, 221, and 222 were also negatived. Article 219 (now 247) was one of the few articles in this cluster that survived. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE: No direct quote recorded — Dr. Ambedkar did not speak specifically on this article during the 13 June 1949 session. T.T. Krishnamachari handled the proceedings for the Drafting Committee that day.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) — SC observed that under Article 247, power is reserved to Parliament to establish courts for better administration of Union laws, but noted no such courts had been constituted at that time. 2. Indu Bhusan De v. State of West Bengal (1986) — SC examined Article 247; the Court held that Article 247 is a new provision with no predecessor in the Government of India Act, 1935, and that it does not override States' power to constitute courts under State List entries. 3. Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005) — SC noted that under Article 247, Parliament could establish courts for administering Central laws in List I, but observed that except a few tribunals, no such courts have been established commensurate with the caseload. 4. Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association (2010) — SC discussed Parliament's legislative competence to establish tribunals (NCLT/NCLAT); Article 247 was referenced as part of the constitutional framework enabling Parliament to create specialised judicial bodies. 5. Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar (2015) — SC held that Article 247 does NOT take away the jurisdiction of State legislatures to constitute courts; State Special Courts Acts (Orissa and Bihar) upheld as not violative of Article 247 because Entry 11-A of List III (Concurrent List) also empowers States. 6. Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2014) — SC clarified the scope of Article 247 regarding establishment of additional courts by Parliament; struck down the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 on grounds of undermining judicial independence. NOTABLE DISSENTS: 1. No recorded dissents specifically on the interpretation of Article 247 in the above cases. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. M.P. Jain (Indian Constitutional Law) — Article 247 is a supplement to the integrated judiciary system; Parliament is not obliged to use it and may utilise State courts for Union law enforcement. 2. D.D. Basu (Commentary on the Constitution of India) — The non obstante clause gives Article 247 primacy within Chapter I of Part XI, but it does not create a monopoly; the 42nd Amendment's Entry 11-A broadened concurrent power over court constitution. 3. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (Rao Committee Report, cited in Salem Bar Association) — Recommended that Parliament should proactively use Article 247 to establish courts proportionate to the growing volume of cases under Union laws.