Article 247

Article 247 of the Constitution of India empowers Parliament to create additional courts for the better administration of laws made by Parliament, particularly concerning matters enumerated in the Union List. This Article is part of the constitutional mechanism designed to ensure that the justice delivery system remains effective and responsive to the needs of the Union’s legislative framework. It represents the commitment of the Constitution to maintaining efficient judicial administration throughout the country.

Background and Purpose

The framers of the Indian Constitution recognised that certain areas of law, particularly those falling under the Union List, would require special judicial mechanisms for their proper enforcement. The Union List includes subjects such as defence, foreign affairs, atomic energy, banking, currency, and inter-State trade, which fall under the exclusive legislative competence of Parliament.
To ensure effective implementation of Union laws, Article 247 was incorporated, granting Parliament the authority to establish additional or specialised courts wherever necessary. This provision supplements the judicial structure provided under Part V (Union Judiciary) and Part VI (State Judiciary) of the Constitution, allowing flexibility to respond to emerging legal and administrative challenges.

Text and Scope of Article 247

Article 247 states:”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.”
The key features of this provision are:

• Parliamentary Competence: The power lies exclusively with Parliament, not with State Legislatures.
• Purpose: The establishment of courts must serve the “better administration of laws” made under Parliament’s authority.
• Subject Matter Limitation: The additional courts can deal only with matters related to entries in the Union List, ensuring they remain within the Union’s legislative jurisdiction.
• Non Obstante Clause: The phrase “notwithstanding anything in this Chapter” gives Article 247 overriding authority over other provisions in Chapter VI of Part XI (Relations between the Union and the States), allowing Parliament to act even in areas where the judiciary is generally under the States’ domain.

This provision provides constitutional legitimacy to Parliament’s power to set up courts beyond the regular judicial hierarchy of the Supreme Court and High Courts, such as specialised tribunals or dedicated benches.

Parliamentary Authority and Legislative Examples

Article 247 enables Parliament to enact laws creating courts tailored to specific areas of law or specialised subject matters. These additional courts operate within the judicial framework to enhance access to justice and streamline adjudication processes.
Examples of laws enacted in pursuance of this power include:

• The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – establishing commercial courts and divisions for resolving commercial disputes efficiently.
• The Family Courts Act, 1984 – creating family courts to deal with matrimonial and family-related matters.
• The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended) – providing for the establishment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals.
• The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – though deriving mainly from Article 323B, its spirit aligns with Article 247’s objective of specialised judicial administration.

Such institutions aim to deliver speedy and specialised justice, particularly in areas requiring technical expertise or rapid resolution to reduce the burden on general civil and criminal courts.

Relation to the Union List and Constitutional Framework

The Union List (List I) under the Seventh Schedule comprises subjects on which only Parliament can make laws. Examples include:

• Defence and armed forces (Entry 1–2)
• Atomic energy (Entry 6)
• Citizenship, naturalisation, and aliens (Entry 17)
• Banking and insurance (Entry 45–47)
• Inter-State trade and commerce (Entry 42)

Article 247 complements this distribution by ensuring that when Parliament legislates on these matters, it also possesses the corresponding authority to establish judicial institutions for their enforcement.
It thus strengthens the administrative machinery of Union laws, ensuring that the legislative competence of Parliament is matched with adequate judicial capacity.

Judicial Interpretation and Related Provisions

There have been no landmark Supreme Court judgments directly interpreting Article 247. However, related discussions in constitutional jurisprudence address the establishment and jurisdiction of courts and tribunals under similar provisions.
Articles closely related to Article 247 include:

• Article 246 – Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States.
• Article 248 – Parliament’s residuary powers to legislate on matters not enumerated in the State List or Concurrent List.
• Articles 323A and 323B – Empower Parliament and State Legislatures to establish tribunals for adjudicating administrative and other specific matters.

Together, these provisions form a comprehensive legal framework for establishing specialised courts and tribunals across India.

Significance and Constitutional Role

The constitutional significance of Article 247 lies in its contribution to the expansion and modernisation of India’s judicial infrastructure. Its main objectives include:

• Ensuring Better Administration of Union Laws: It provides a legal basis for establishing courts necessary to enforce central legislation effectively.
• Promoting Judicial Specialisation: By allowing the creation of subject-specific courts, it ensures that complex legal issues are adjudicated by specialised judges.
• Reducing Case Backlogs: Additional courts help in easing the workload of existing courts, ensuring quicker disposal of cases.
• Enhancing Access to Justice: Citizens benefit from dedicated forums that provide timely and efficient dispute resolution.

By decentralising judicial responsibilities and aligning courts with specific legislative domains, Article 247 supports the goal of a responsive and efficient judiciary.

Implementation and Administrative Implications

The implementation of Article 247 has practical implications for India’s legal system:

• It requires legislative action by Parliament, followed by executive measures to set up and operationalise the new courts.
• Establishing additional courts necessitates adequate financial resources, infrastructure, and trained judicial personnel.
• Coordination with State authorities is often essential, especially when these courts function within State territories.
• The establishment of such courts must also ensure harmonisation with existing judicial structures to prevent jurisdictional conflicts or overlap.

Parliamentary enactments under Article 247 are subject to judicial review to ensure conformity with constitutional principles such as separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, and federal balance.

Challenges and Limitations

While Article 247 provides a robust constitutional foundation, its effective utilisation faces several challenges:

• Resource Constraints: Setting up new courts requires significant financial and administrative resources.
• Jurisdictional Overlap: Potential duplication with existing courts and tribunals can create procedural confusion.
• Coordination Issues: Implementation often involves coordination between the Union and State governments, leading to administrative delays.
• Limited Utilisation: Despite its wide scope, Article 247 has not been extensively used, with only a few specialised courts established under its authority.

Addressing these challenges is essential to fully realise the Article’s purpose of strengthening judicial capacity.

Future Prospects

In the context of ongoing judicial reforms and technological advancements, Article 247 holds promise for future innovation in judicial administration. Potential developments include:

• Expansion of commercial and cyber courts to handle disputes arising from India’s growing digital economy.
• Creation of specialised benches for environmental, financial, or intellectual property matters.
• Integration of technology and e-courts to enhance accessibility and transparency in the justice system.