Article 255

Article 255 of the Constitution of India safeguards the validity of laws passed by Parliament and State Legislatures when certain procedural recommendations or sanctions required by the Constitution have not been strictly followed. It ensures that minor procedural irregularities in obtaining recommendations or sanctions do not render otherwise valid legislation invalid, provided that the law receives the appropriate assent from the competent authority.
This Article thus serves a crucial procedural function, maintaining the continuity and stability of the legislative process while prioritising substance over technicalities.

Background and Purpose

In the constitutional framework, certain types of Bills — particularly those dealing with financial matters, taxation, or distribution of powers — require prior recommendation or sanction from constitutional authorities such as the President, Governor, or Rajpramukh (in the context of pre-reorganisation princely States).
The framers of the Constitution recognised that failure to secure such prior recommendation, often due to inadvertence or administrative delay, could create legal uncertainty and disrupt governance. To prevent such outcomes, Article 255 was introduced to clarify that the absence of procedural recommendations or sanctions would not, by itself, invalidate a law, as long as the Bill ultimately receives the necessary assent from the competent authority.

Text and Scope of Article 255

The text of Article 255 provides:
“No Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State, and no provision in any such Act, shall be invalid by reason only that some recommendation or previous sanction required by this Constitution was not given, if assent to that Act was given—(a) where the recommendation required was that of the Governor, either by the Governor or by the President;(b) where the recommendation required was that of the Rajpramukh, either by the Rajpramukh or by the President;(c) where the recommendation or previous sanction required was that of the President, by the President.”
This provision establishes three important principles:

1. Legislative Validity: A law remains valid despite procedural lapses in obtaining the required recommendation or sanction.
2. Substitution of Assent: The assent of the Governor or President cures the defect of missing recommendation.
3. Hierarchy of Approval: If the recommendation of a lower authority (like the Governor or Rajpramukh) is missing, assent by a higher authority (the President) can validate the law.

Thus, Article 255 ensures that substantive legislative intent prevails over formal procedural compliance.

Nature of Recommendations and Sanctions

The Constitution of India requires recommendations or sanctions in several contexts:

• Financial Bills (Articles 110 and 117): Require the President’s or Governor’s recommendation for introduction.
• State Bills affecting the High Court (Article 200): Require the Governor to reserve the Bill for the President’s consideration.
• Bills affecting taxation or borrowing powers (Articles 274 and 304): Require the President’s recommendation.

Such recommendations serve as constitutional checks to ensure coordination between the executive and the legislature, particularly in financial or inter-governmental matters. However, Article 255 clarifies that these are procedural safeguards, not mandatory conditions for the validity of the final legislation.

Judicial Interpretation

The judiciary has consistently interpreted Article 255 as a curative and procedural provision, ensuring that minor procedural lapses do not invalidate substantive legislation.

• State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963): The Supreme Court emphasised that procedural recommendations are matters of form, not substance, and cannot invalidate a law if the proper assent is eventually obtained.
• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Although primarily known for the basic structure doctrine, this case reaffirmed that procedural lapses in law-making do not affect the constitutional validity of a law once it has received proper assent.

Through these rulings, the Court has underscored that legislative intent and constitutional compliance at the stage of assent outweigh technical procedural requirements during the Bill’s passage.

Purpose and Significance

The principal objectives and significance of Article 255 include:

• Ensuring Legislative Continuity: It prevents governance paralysis due to minor procedural omissions.
• Promoting Substantive Justice: It reinforces the principle that procedural lapses should not defeat legitimate legislative outcomes.
• Maintaining Hierarchical Authority: It allows higher constitutional authorities, such as the President, to validate laws in cases where subordinate recommendations are missing.
• Supporting Efficient Law-Making: It enables both Parliament and State Legislatures to function smoothly without being constrained by avoidable procedural technicalities.

This reflects a pragmatic approach to governance, ensuring that legislative intent is not undermined by formality.

Relationship with Other Constitutional Provisions

Article 255 is closely connected with other provisions that regulate the legislative process and inter-governmental coordination, including:

• Article 254: Resolves inconsistencies between Central and State laws.
• Article 256: Obligates States to comply with laws made by Parliament.
• Articles 200 and 201: Govern the Governor’s and President’s assent to State legislation.
• Articles 110 and 117: Define the financial and procedural requirements for Money Bills and Financial Bills.

Together, these Articles form the procedural and substantive framework governing law-making in India’s federal structure.

Implications of Article 255

Article 255 plays a vital role in ensuring that:

• Laws are not invalidated merely due to minor procedural defects, provided the final assent is constitutionally valid.
• Legislative efficiency is upheld, preventing excessive litigation over procedural omissions.
• Federal coordination between the Union and the States remains effective, as higher authorities (such as the President) can regularise procedural lapses.

For example, if a State Bill requiring the Governor’s recommendation was passed without it but later received Presidential assent, it would remain valid under Article 255.

Criticism and Concerns

Despite its advantages, Article 255 has also attracted certain criticisms:

• Potential for Executive Overreach: The provision could be misused to validate laws that bypass essential procedural scrutiny.
• Weakening of Checks and Balances: By treating recommendations as procedural rather than mandatory, the Article might dilute executive oversight intended by the framers.
• Ambiguity in Application: Questions may arise about what constitutes a “recommendation required by the Constitution” and the limits of its waiver under this Article.

Nevertheless, in practice, the provision has functioned primarily as a technical safeguard, rather than as a means to bypass substantive constitutional requirements.

Practical Examples

Situations where Article 255 might apply include:

• A State financial Bill introduced without the Governor’s recommendation but later assented to by the Governor or President.
• A Central Bill requiring the President’s recommendation introduced prematurely but validated after receiving his assent.
• A Bill requiring inter-governmental sanction under Article 274 enacted without it but later ratified by proper assent.

In each of these cases, the constitutional defect is cured through assent, ensuring that governance continues uninterrupted.