Article 233A in Constitution of India

Loading case document...

Please wait

233A. Validation of appointments of, and judgments, etc., delivered by, certain district judges

Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court,

(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.

[Editorial comment-The Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966, inserted a new Article 233A, among other things such as validating the appointments, postings, promotions, and transfer of District judges. This amendment establishes new jurisdictions that have the power to certify the appointments, promotions and transfers of District judges and judgments made before the enactment of current law in States that have not complied with the corresponding provisions of Article 233 of the Indian Constitution. The amendment act is primarily concerned with the appointment, secondment, promotion, and transfer of district judges to the effective date of existing laws enacted in states that do not comply with the provisions of Article 233 or Article 235 of the Constitution. Also refer ]

Article 233A in Constitution of India

233A. Validation of appointments of, and judgments, etc., delivered by, certain district judges

Notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court,

(a)

AI Summary

Since you have provided the case title as "Article 233A in Constitution of India" and specified the Court as "Constitution Article" and Date as "26 January 1950," it is likely you are looking for information about the introduction or initial interpretation of Article 233A of the Indian Constitution. However, Article 233A was inserted into the Constitution much later, by the Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966. Therefore, a case specifically on Article 233A could not have occurred on January 26, 1950.

Assuming you're interested in a hypothetical scenario where a challenge to the validity of appointments of district judges (which is what Article 233A addresses) occurred shortly after the Constitution came into force, I will provide a summary based on the spirit of what Article 233A seeks to validate, but acknowledging that the Article itself did not exist at that time. This is a hypothetical legal analysis.

Short Summary

This hypothetical case concerns the validity of appointments of certain district judges whose appointments might have been irregular under the existing rules and regulations concerning qualifications and procedures. The hypothetical holding would likely uphold the appointments based on the need to maintain judicial stability and prevent disruption of the judicial system, anticipating the rationale later enshrined in Article 233A.

Facts

Following the adoption of the Constitution, several individuals were appointed as district judges in a particular state. Questions arose regarding whether these appointments strictly adhered to the prescribed qualifications or followed the exact procedural requirements in place at the time. Specifically, concerns were raised about whether some appointees lacked the requisite years of practice as advocates or whether the selection process deviated from established norms.

Issues

The primary legal issue is whether the appointments of these district judges are valid, considering the alleged irregularities in their qualifications or the appointment process, and what the consequences are if the appointments are deemed invalid.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioners (likely litigants whose cases were decided by these judges or individuals challenging the appointments) argue that the appointments are illegal and unconstitutional because the appointees did not meet the necessary qualifications or the appointment process was flawed. They contend that any judgments or orders passed by these judges are therefore void and without legal effect.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondents (likely the state government or the judges themselves) argue that the appointments were made in good faith and in the best interests of the administration of justice. They maintain that even if there were minor irregularities, these should not invalidate the appointments, especially considering the potential disruption to the judicial system and the hardship it would cause to litigants. They might also argue that the appointees possessed substantial legal experience and were otherwise qualified to serve as district judges.

Court's Reasoning

The Court, recognizing the importance of maintaining the stability and integrity of the judicial system, would likely adopt a pragmatic approach. It might acknowledge the irregularities but emphasize that invalidating the appointments would create chaos and uncertainty. The Court might invoke principles of de facto validity, suggesting that even if the appointments were technically flawed, the judges acted under color of authority, and their judgments should be upheld to prevent injustice. The Court would likely balance the need for strict adherence to rules with the practical consequences of invalidating numerous judicial decisions.

Conclusion

The Court hypothetically rules in favor of the respondents, upholding the validity of the appointments of the district judges. The Court might direct the government to rectify any procedural deficiencies in future appointments but emphasizes that the existing appointments should not be disturbed to avoid disruption of the judicial system. This decision anticipates the later insertion of Article 233A, which provides similar validation for appointments of district judges.