Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966

The Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966 was enacted to validate the appointments, postings, promotions, and transfers of district judges in various Indian States that had been declared invalid by the Supreme Court due to non-compliance with Articles 233 and 235 of the Constitution. It also validated all judgements, decrees, and orders passed by such judges prior to the Amendment, ensuring continuity and legality in the functioning of the subordinate judiciary.
The Amendment inserted a new Article 233A into the Constitution, thereby providing retrospective legal validation to the affected appointments and judicial acts. The Act came into effect on 3 December 1966, following its passage by both Houses of Parliament and Presidential assent on the same date.

Background

Articles 233 and 235 of the Constitution of India regulate the appointment, posting, promotion, and control of district judges:

• Article 233 provides that appointments of district judges shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to that State.
• Article 235 vests control over district courts and subordinate courts, including posting and promotion of judicial officers, in the High Court.

In a series of judicial pronouncements in the mid-1960s, particularly those concerning the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India declared several appointments of district judges invalid because they had not been made in strict conformity with these constitutional provisions.
In another case, the Court further held that while the power to appoint district judges under Article 233 lay with the Governor, the power of transfer of such judges was not included under Article 233 but vested exclusively in the High Court under Article 235.
These rulings created a constitutional crisis in the judiciary of several States, most notably Uttar Pradesh. The validity of judicial decisions, decrees, and sentences passed by improperly appointed or transferred district judges came under question. Numerous writ petitions and appeals were filed challenging those judicial acts, resulting in the near paralysis of the district judiciary.
To restore judicial order and prevent a breakdown in the administration of justice, the Government of India introduced the Twentieth Amendment Bill, 1966, to retrospectively validate the appointments and judicial acts of such officers.

Objectives of the Amendment

The Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill clearly outlined its purpose:

“Appointment of district judges in Uttar Pradesh and a few other States have been rendered invalid and illegal by a recent judgment of the Supreme Court on the ground that such appointments were not made in accordance with the provisions of article 233 of the Constitution… As a result of these judgments, a serious situation has arisen because doubt has been thrown on the validity of the judgments, decrees, orders and sentences passed or made by these district judges and a number of writ petitions and other cases have already been filed challenging their validity. The functioning of the district courts in Uttar Pradesh has practically come to a standstill.”

Hence, the Bill sought:

1. To validate retrospectively the appointments, postings, promotions, and transfers of district judges made before the Amendment, even if inconsistent with Articles 233 and 235.
2. To validate judicial acts—including judgments, decrees, and orders—passed by such judges before the commencement of the Amendment.

Provisions of the Amendment

The Twentieth Amendment inserted a new Article 233A into the Constitution, reading as follows:

“233A. Validation of appointments of, and judgements etc., delivered by, certain district judges.Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court—(a) (i) no appointment of any person already in the Judicial service of a State or of any person who has been for not less than seven years an advocate or a pleader, to be a district judge in that State, and(ii) no posting, promotion or transfer of any such person as a district judge, made at any time before the commencement of the Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of article 233 or article 235 shall be deemed to be illegal or void or ever to have become illegal or void by reason only of the fact that such appointment, posting, promotion or transfer was not made in accordance with the said provisions;(b) no jurisdiction exercised, no judgment, decree, sentence or order passed or made, and no other act or proceeding done or taken, before the commencement of the Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966 by, or before, any person appointed, posted, promoted or transferred as a district judge in any State otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of article 233 or article 235 shall be deemed to be illegal or invalid or ever to have become illegal or invalid by reason only of the fact that such appointment, posting, promotion or transfer was not made in accordance with the said provisions.”

This article thus provided complete retrospective validation, ensuring that both:

• Appointments of judges made contrary to Articles 233 and 235, and
• Judicial acts performed by those judges,

remained legally valid and effective despite earlier judicial pronouncements to the contrary.

Legislative History

The Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Bill, 1966 (Bill No. 89 of 1966) was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 25 November 1966 by Yashwantrao Balwantrao Chavan, then Minister of Home Affairs.

• The Bill was initially titled the Constitution (Twenty-third Amendment) Bill, 1966, but during the legislative process, it was formally amended to read Twentieth Amendment.
• It was passed by the Lok Sabha on 3 December 1966, after adopting only the formal amendment to correct the numbering.
• The Rajya Sabha considered and passed the Bill on 9 December 1966.
• The Act received Presidential assent from Dr. Zakir Husain on 22 December 1966 and came into force the same day.
• It was notified in The Gazette of India on 23 December 1966.

Constitutional Context

The Amendment’s necessity arose from the interpretation of Articles 233 and 235 by the Supreme Court, which held that:

• The Governor’s power of appointment under Article 233 was restricted to making initial appointments of district judges and did not include transfers.
• The High Court’s control under Article 235 extended to transfers, postings, and disciplinary control of judicial officers.

Because several States had historically allowed the executive to exercise certain powers of posting and transfer, many actions taken under such arrangements were declared unconstitutional. The Amendment thus served as a curative measure, ensuring that past administrative irregularities did not disrupt judicial continuity or invalidate thousands of legal proceedings.

Significance

The Twentieth Amendment was both remedial and preventive in nature. Its importance may be summarised under the following points:

1. Restoration of Judicial Stability: It ensured that judicial decisions delivered by improperly appointed district judges remained valid, thereby preventing large-scale nullification of trials, decrees, and orders.
2. Protection of Judicial Process: By validating past actions, the Amendment preserved the integrity of the justice system and prevented a breakdown in district-level judicial administration.
3. Preservation of Constitutional Order: It reconciled the constitutional provisions on judicial appointments and control with administrative realities, avoiding prolonged uncertainty and procedural paralysis.
4. Reinforcement of Articles 233 and 235: While validating irregular appointments retrospectively, the Amendment reinforced that future appointments must strictly conform to Articles 233 and 235, thereby strengthening constitutional compliance.
5. Legal Continuity: The Amendment safeguarded citizens’ rights and prevented widespread reopening of concluded cases, which would otherwise have overwhelmed the courts.

Broader Impact

The Twentieth Amendment represents a distinctive example of Parliament exercising its constituent power to cure constitutional defects revealed by judicial interpretation. It was not designed to alter constitutional principles but to restore administrative functionality in the judiciary.
In the broader scheme of constitutional evolution, it reaffirmed:

• The supremacy of the Constitution, even as interpreted by the judiciary; and
• Parliament’s residual power to amend the Constitution to preserve institutional stability.

By enacting this measure promptly, Parliament demonstrated its ability to respond effectively to judicial findings without undermining the independence of the judiciary.