Skip to main content

Article 228A

Special Provisions for State Laws (Repealed)

Official heading: “Special provisions as to disposal of questions relating to constitutional validity of State laws.].”

Historical / Omitted Provision

Inserted during the Emergency by the 42nd Amendment (1976) to impede High Courts from striking down State legislation; repealed by the post-Emergency 43rd Amendment (1977).

Amendment: Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977 Effective Date: 13-04-1978Modern Constitutional Status: Omitted from the operative Constitution. High Court benches operate under standard division bench and majority rules without artificial supermajority thresholds.
Check this article against the official editionAwaiting human legal review
Source edition
The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2026)
Source locator
Part VI, Article 228A, printed page 107
Last human source-link check
Not yet checked
Last human legal review
Not yet reviewed

AI-assisted source comparisons are noted with the citations below; the check date remains pending until a human confirms the link. The report link opens your email app; you choose whether to send it.

1. In One Sentence

Article 228A, inserted by the 42nd Amendment (1976) to mandate special minimum benches and two-thirds majorities for declaring State laws unconstitutional, was repealed by the 43rd Amendment (1977).

2. What It Means in Everyday Language

Article 228A was enacted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, during the Emergency to make it substantially harder for High Courts to invalidate State laws.

It mandated that a High Court could not determine the constitutional validity of any State law unless heard by a bench of not less than five judges (or all judges if the court had fewer than five), and required a special two-thirds majority to strike down any statute.

Constitutional Repeal: The Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, repealed Article 228A in its entirety (w.e.f. 13 April 1978), restoring the standard constitutional rule that benches constituted under High Court rules decide questions by ordinary majority.

3. Practical Illustrative Example

Everyday Scenario:

A division bench of two High Court judges hears a writ petition challenging a State taxation act.

Core takeaway: Under modern constitutional law following the repeal of Article 228A, a two-judge division bench has full authority to strike down an unconstitutional State law by majority decision.
Illustrative Notice: Article 228A is an omitted historical provision and has no operative legal force.

4. Important Limits, Qualifications & Exceptions

Article 228A represents an omitted Emergency-era procedural hurdle designed to insulate State legislation.

  • Inserted by 42nd Amendment (1976) during the Emergency.
  • Required minimum five-judge benches and two-thirds majorities to invalidate State laws.
  • Repealed by 43rd Amendment (1977) to restore judicial independence and normal quorum rules.
  • Preserved in official editions as an omitted historical entry.

5. Historical constitutional wording — not operative

Special provisions as to disposal of questions relating to constitutional validity of State laws.—Omitted by the Constitution (Forty-third Amendment) Act, 1977, s. 10 (w.e.f. 13-4-1978).
Transcription for reference; compare with the linked official editionNot yet verified by a human legal reviewer

6. Sources & Historical Assembly Deliberations

Assembly quotations are withheld until wording, dates, and attribution have been checked against the primary record.

Sources & Citation Metadata
  • •
    Constitutional TextThe Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2026)Cited PDF page
    Government of India (Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice) • Part VI, Article 228A, printed page 107 • Human source-link check pending

    Primary PDF accessed and transcribed with AI assistance on 14 October 2026. Formatting and amendment annotation markers are omitted; operative wording is retained. This is not human legal review. Later amendments and commencement notifications have not been comprehensively checked.

Human legal review is pending; compare the text with the cited editionNon-partisan educational resource

Related Constitutional Articles to Explore: