Article 32A

Article 32A was a short-lived constitutional provision in India, introduced through the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 and subsequently repealed by the 43rd Amendment Act of 1977. It was a controversial insertion, primarily because it sought to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in matters concerning the constitutional validity of State laws. The article formed part of a broader constitutional and political context in which the balance between the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary was being intensely debated.

Background and Introduction

The 42nd Amendment, enacted during the period of the Emergency (1975–1977), was one of the most far-reaching amendments to the Indian Constitution. It was intended by the then government to strengthen the powers of the Parliament and the executive, often at the expense of the judiciary. Article 32A was one of several provisions introduced with this intent.
Under normal circumstances, Article 32 of the Constitution guarantees the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of fundamental rights. It is regarded as the “heart and soul of the Constitution”, as described by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. However, Article 32A sought to curtail this fundamental right by placing restrictions on the Supreme Court’s power to examine the constitutional validity of State laws in proceedings initiated under Article 32.

Purpose and Provisions of Article 32A

The main objective of Article 32A was to prevent the Supreme Court from considering the validity of State laws unless the validity of a Central law was also in question within the same proceeding. The provision stated that the Supreme Court “shall not consider the constitutional validity of any State law in proceedings under Article 32 unless the constitutional validity of any Central law is also in issue in such proceedings.”
This restriction had the effect of significantly narrowing the scope of judicial review available under Article 32. Consequently, individuals challenging State laws as violative of fundamental rights were effectively required to approach the respective High Courts under Article 226 rather than the Supreme Court directly.

Impact on Judicial Review

Judicial review is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that legislative and executive actions remain within constitutional bounds. Article 32A was widely regarded as an attempt to weaken this principle. By restricting the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, it indirectly reduced citizens’ ability to seek protection of their fundamental rights from the apex judicial authority.
The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has historically acted as the guardian of the Constitution. Hence, any move that diluted its powers to review legislative actions was seen as a threat to constitutional democracy. Article 32A’s enactment thus led to a strong reaction from legal scholars, constitutional experts, and members of the judiciary.

Criticism and Controversy

Article 32A was criticised for undermining the constitutional principle of checks and balances. The opposition and various jurists viewed it as an encroachment upon the judiciary’s independence. Critics argued that the restriction placed on the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction undercut the fundamental right to constitutional remedies, which forms the backbone of India’s rights-based constitutional framework.
Additionally, the timing of its introduction—during the Emergency—added to the suspicion that the measure was politically motivated. The government of the day, led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, was accused of seeking to centralise authority and diminish judicial scrutiny of State and Central actions.
Prominent jurists such as H. M. Seervai and Nani Palkhivala voiced strong opposition to the provision. They warned that such limitations would erode the faith of the people in the judiciary’s ability to act as the protector of fundamental rights.

Judicial Response and Key Judgments

Although Article 32A was in force only for a brief period, the Supreme Court continued to assert, within its limited capacity, the importance of judicial review as an integral feature of the Constitution. Even during the Emergency, the Court’s decisions reflected a recognition that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution—a doctrine established in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) judgment.
The existence of Article 32A did not alter the Court’s long-term stance that the power of judicial review could not be completely removed or restricted without damaging the basic structure of the Constitution. This principle became even more pronounced following the repeal of the provision.

Repeal by the 43rd Amendment

The 43rd Amendment Act of 1977, passed by the succeeding government led by the Janata Party, sought to undo many of the changes brought by the 42nd Amendment. Among these reversals was the repeal of Article 32A, which restored the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 32.
The repeal was widely welcomed by the legal community and the general public as a restoration of judicial independence. It reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s authority to hear cases relating to the constitutional validity of both Central and State laws. This action was viewed as a necessary correction to maintain the balance of power among the three organs of government and to uphold the sanctity of fundamental rights.

Significance and Legacy

Although Article 32A was short-lived, its introduction and repeal had significant constitutional implications. It served as a reminder of how constitutional amendments could be used to alter the balance of power within the Indian polity. Its removal reinforced the principle that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 is essential to the enforcement of fundamental rights and cannot be curtailed without undermining the constitutional framework.