Constitution of India
Article 395: Repeals
Part XXII — Short Title, Commencement, Authoritative Text in Hindi and Repeals
Article 395 (no sub-divisions)
WHAT IT SAYS: The Indian Independence Act, 1947, and the Government of India Act, 1935, together with all enactments amending or supplementing the latter Act, but not including the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949, are hereby repealed. WHAT IT MEANS: Upon commencement of the Constitution (26 Jan 1950), these two principal British statutes and all amendments to the GOI Act 1935 ceased to have legal force — except the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act 1949 was deliberately preserved. KEY DOCTRINE: Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy — the Constitution replaced Parliamentary sovereignty inherited from Britain; the source of all legal authority shifted from the British Crown/Parliament to 'We, the People of India'.
Constitutional Inspiration
SOURCE(S): 1. Ireland — Article 48–50 of the Irish Free State Constitution (1922) included a repeal-of-prior-legislation provision to sever ties with the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Original provision: The Irish Constitution repealed the prior British Acts governing Ireland upon commencement. What India kept: The concept of a specific repeal clause at the end of the Constitution to formally abrogate colonial-era governance statutes. 2. Government of India Act, 1935 — Over 250 provisions of the Indian Constitution were drawn from this Act; Article 395 was needed precisely because this Act was the principal source. Original provision: The GOI Act 1935 was the constitutional framework of British India, providing for federalism, provincial autonomy, and the Federal Court. What India kept: Many structural features (federal scheme, emergency provisions, judiciary) but formally repealed the Act itself to establish autochthonous constitutional authority. INDIA'S SPECIFIC ADAPTATIONS: 1. Explicit repeal of BOTH the Indian Independence Act 1947 AND the GOI Act 1935 — to ensure no residual British parliamentary sovereignty lingered. 2. Specific exclusion of the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949 — because this Indian-enacted statute had already transferred final appellate jurisdiction to India's own courts and needed to remain operative. 3. Read with Article 372 (continuance of existing laws) — India created a dual mechanism: Article 395 repealed the parent Acts while Article 372 ensured that subordinate laws made under them continued until altered by competent authority, avoiding a legal vacuum.
Constituent Assembly Debate
DEBATED ON: 17 October 1949 (CAD Volume X) DRAFT ARTICLE NUMBER: Draft Article 315 KEY SPEAKERS: 1. Drafting Committee Member (first) — Moved an amendment that only provisions of the IIA 1947 inconsistent with the new Constitution would be repealed (partial repeal approach). 2. Assembly Members (multiple) — Opposed partial repeal; argued the IIA and GOI Act must be wholly withdrawn on the day the Constitution is enacted, as continuing British legislation was against the dignity of the Constitution. 3. Drafting Committee Member (second) — Agreed with full repeal; clarified the Constitution was an independent body with its own free will and all preceding legislations must cease to have effect. 4. One Member — Opposed Draft Article 315 entirely, arguing it was redundant because Draft Article 307 (now Art. 372) already provided for continuance of existing laws. MAJOR DISAGREEMENTS: 1. Partial vs. Full Repeal — One Drafting Committee member wanted to repeal only inconsistent provisions; the Assembly rejected this and demanded a clean, total repeal. 2. Redundancy Argument — A member questioned the need for a separate repeal provision when Art. 372 already handled continuance of laws; this was overruled. FINAL OUTCOME: The partial-repeal amendment was deleted; Draft Article 315 was adopted with a clean, unconditional repeal of both Acts, along with the carve-out for the Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act, 1949. AMBEDKAR'S KEY QUOTE (from his closing speech, 25 Nov 1949): "In its final form, the Draft Constitution contains 395 articles and 8 Schedules." — While Ambedkar did not make a specific quoted remark on Art. 395 alone, the entire framework reflected his view that the Constitution must derive authority solely from the people of India, not from British statutes.
Landmark Judgments
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS: 1. Edward Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar v. State of Ajmer (1954) — The Supreme Court held that while the GOI Act 1935 stands repealed by Article 395, laws made under it continue in force under Article 372(1) and can be adapted under Article 372(2). 2. Garikapatti Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhury (1957) — The Supreme Court held that Article 395 repealed the GOI Act 1935 and the IIA 1947, which necessarily abolished the Federal Court; vested rights of appeal under the old regime survived under saving provisions. 3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — While not directly interpreting Article 395, the Court affirmed constitutional supremacy and the basic structure doctrine, implicitly underscoring the shift from colonial subordination to sovereign constitutional authority effectuated by Article 395. 4. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) — The Court reiterated that constitutional supremacy prevails over legislative or executive power, reflecting the foundational principle behind the repeal of British statutes under Article 395. NOTABLE DISSENTS (if any): 1. Justice Venkatarama Ayyar in Garikapatti Veeraya (1957) — Dissented on the scope of vested appeal rights surviving the repeal under Article 395 and transition to the new constitutional framework. SCHOLARS & JURISTS: 1. Granville Austin — Viewed Article 395 as the final act of constitutional decolonisation, ensuring India's legal authority emanated from 'We, the People' rather than the British Parliament. 2. H.M. Seervai — Emphasised that Article 395 read with Article 372 created a seamless legal transition: the parent Acts were destroyed, but the living body of subordinate law was kept alive to prevent a legal vacuum.