Article 147

Article 147 of the Constitution of India provides the framework for interpreting the Constitution, particularly in relation to substantial questions of law and historical legislative instruments that preceded the Constitution’s adoption. This provision ensures that constitutional interpretation remains consistent, comprehensive, and informed by the historical evolution of Indian governance from colonial rule to independence.
By linking modern constitutional interpretation with the pre-constitutional legal framework, Article 147 serves as a bridge between India’s colonial legal heritage and its sovereign democratic legal system.

Constitutional Text

Article 147 states:

“In this Chapter, references to the Supreme Court shall be construed as including references to the Federal Court established under the Government of India Act, 1935, and references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution shall be construed as including references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935, or any Order in Council or order made thereunder, or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, or any order made thereunder.”

Purpose and Objective

The main purpose of Article 147 is to provide continuity in constitutional interpretation. It ensures that when courts interpret the Constitution, they take into account:

• The historical legal context in which the Indian Constitution evolved, and
• The continuity of principles of governance and law derived from earlier enactments such as the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Indian Independence Act, 1947.

In essence, Article 147 recognises that India’s present legal and constitutional framework is an evolution of past laws and institutions, not a complete break from them. It thus ensures historical coherence in the interpretation of constitutional questions.

Historical Background

Before the adoption of the Constitution of India in 1950, the Federal Court of India, established under the Government of India Act, 1935, functioned as the highest judicial authority for British India. Its jurisdiction extended to constitutional interpretation, particularly regarding the division of legislative powers between the Centre and the Provinces.
The Indian Independence Act, 1947, subsequently transferred sovereignty from British rule to independent India, while retaining several institutional structures and legal provisions until the new Constitution came into effect.
Article 147 thus preserves the interpretative link between the Federal Court’s decisions under pre-independence statutes and the Supreme Court’s authority under the Constitution.

Scope and Application

Article 147 serves two main interpretative functions:

1. Inclusion of the Federal Court:References to the Supreme Court in constitutional provisions are deemed to include references to the Federal Court established under the Government of India Act, 1935. This ensures that precedents and interpretations from the Federal Court period remain relevant in understanding the evolution of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
2. Extension to Pre-Constitutional Laws:The Article clarifies that references to “any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution” include similar questions relating to:
   • The Government of India Act, 1935 and any amendments thereto;
   • Any Orders in Council or orders made under the 1935 Act; and
   • The Indian Independence Act, 1947, along with any orders made under it.

This allows courts to consider pre-constitutional enactments and legal instruments while interpreting modern constitutional provisions, particularly when those earlier laws influenced the drafting of the Constitution.

Substantial Question of Law

A substantial question of law refers to an important legal issue that requires judicial determination because it has significant implications for the interpretation of constitutional or statutory provisions. Under Article 147, this includes questions concerning:

• Federal distribution of powers between the Centre and States (as earlier addressed under the 1935 Act),
• Validity or interpretation of legislative powers, and
• Continuity of legal principles from colonial to constitutional governance.

This ensures that courts can address complex constitutional questions comprehensively, with due regard to their historical context and precedents.

Related Constitutional Provisions

Several other constitutional Articles complement the interpretative role defined under Article 147:

• Article 13: Declares that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void, forming the basis of judicial review.
• Article 141: Makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts in India.
• Article 132: Provides for appeals to the Supreme Court involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation.
• Article 145: Empowers the Supreme Court to frame rules for its practice and procedure, including constitutional cases.

Together, these provisions establish a robust framework for constitutional interpretation and judicial review.

Principles of Constitutional Interpretation

When interpreting constitutional provisions, the judiciary employs several established principles:

1. Literal Rule:Words in the Constitution are given their ordinary and plain meaning unless such interpretation leads to absurdity or inconsistency.
2. Golden Rule:The literal meaning may be modified to avoid results that are unreasonable or contrary to the Constitution’s intent.
3. Mischief Rule:Courts interpret provisions by identifying the specific “mischief” or problem that the law or constitutional provision aimed to address.
4. Harmonious Construction:All parts of the Constitution are interpreted in a way that gives effect to each provision without creating conflicts.
5. Doctrine of Basic Structure:Derived from Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), this doctrine ensures that no constitutional amendment can destroy the fundamental framework of the Constitution.

Article 147 provides the historical and statutory foundation upon which these interpretative methods are applied.

Landmark Case Laws and Judicial Developments

While Article 147 is rarely invoked directly, it underpins many constitutional interpretations made by the Supreme Court. Several landmark judgments illustrate its influence:

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):Established the Basic Structure Doctrine, affirming that judicial interpretation must preserve the essential framework of the Constitution while recognising its historical roots in earlier legal traditions.
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975):The Court interpreted constitutional provisions relating to elections and separation of powers, demonstrating the judiciary’s role in preserving the integrity of constitutional interpretation.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980):The Court reinforced that constitutional interpretation must balance Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, upholding the principle of constitutional harmony.
• In re: Special Courts Bill (1978):The Supreme Court examined whether a proposed law was consistent with constitutional principles, drawing from interpretative precedents established under earlier British-Indian laws.

Through such judgments, the Court has continually reaffirmed the enduring relevance of Article 147 in guiding historical, contextual, and purposive interpretation of the Constitution.

Significance of Article 147

1. Historical Continuity:It ensures that the Constitution is interpreted in light of India’s legal evolution, maintaining a coherent link between pre- and post-independence legal frameworks.
2. Guidance for Substantial Legal Questions:The Article provides interpretative guidance for resolving complex constitutional issues by referencing earlier legal systems.
3. Institutional Consistency:By including references to the Federal Court, Article 147 affirms the continuity of India’s judicial tradition and preserves institutional memory.
4. Support for Judicial Review:It strengthens the Supreme Court’s interpretative authority by clarifying that pre-constitutional laws and precedents may be used to interpret constitutional provisions.
5. Preservation of the Rule of Law:The Article ensures that judicial interpretation remains grounded in historical and legal reasoning, promoting consistency and legitimacy in constitutional adjudication.

Implications for Legal Practice

For advocates and judges, Article 147 has practical implications:

• It allows the use of pre-constitutional statutes and case law as interpretative aids in constitutional litigation.
• It provides a framework for analysing federal relationships, legislative competence, and constitutional validity of laws.
• It encourages a holistic and historically informed approach to legal argumentation, ensuring that constitutional principles are not interpreted in isolation.

Constitutional and Historical Significance

Article 147 holds enduring relevance as a link between India’s constitutional present and its colonial legal past. It underscores the fact that the Indian Constitution was not framed in a vacuum but evolved from earlier legislative and judicial systems.