Article 228 of the Costitution of India with Case law
🇮🇳 Article 228 of the Constitution of India
Topic: Transfer of certain cases to High Court
🔹 Text of Article 228:
If the High Court is satisfied that a case pending in a subordinate court involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, it may withdraw the case and:
(a) either dispose of the case itself, or
(b) determine the constitutional question and then return the case to the subordinate court with its judgment on that question.
🧾 Explanation:
Article 228 empowers High Courts to protect the constitutional integrity of laws by deciding crucial constitutional issues themselves.
It prevents misinterpretation of constitutional provisions by lower/subordinate courts.
The power is discretionary, not mandatory.
📌 Key Elements of Article 228:
| Element | Description |
|---|---|
| Applicable Court | High Court |
| Source of Case | Subordinate Courts (like District Court) |
| Condition | Must involve a substantial question of constitutional law |
| Action Allowed | High Court may withdraw and decide OR decide constitutional issue and return |
| Objective | Uniform interpretation of constitutional questions |
⚖️ Important Case Laws under Article 228:
🔹 1. Chandrakumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261
Context: Role of tribunals and High Courts’ constitutional powers.
Held: High Courts’ constitutional jurisdiction cannot be ousted even by creation of tribunals.
Reinforced that Article 228 exists to preserve the constitutional role of High Courts.
🔹 2. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) 3 SCC 609
Involved constitutional interpretation related to presidential powers.
Although primarily under Article 72, the discussion recognized the importance of High Courts' role under Article 228 in upholding constitutional law at the state level.
🔹 3. Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1954 AIR 403)
One of the earliest cases discussing transfer of cases to High Courts under Article 228.
Held: Subordinate courts cannot interpret constitutional questions independently if the High Court chooses to withdraw.
🔹 4. Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988 AIR 1531)
Supreme Court clarified that fundamental rights and constitutional interpretation are not matters to be lightly decided in subordinate courts.
Supports Article 228’s goal of consistent interpretation by constitutional courts.
📚 Practical Example:
Suppose a trial is ongoing in a Sessions Court involving a constitutional challenge to a state law.
If the issue is substantial, the High Court can withdraw the case under Article 228 and decide the constitutional question itself, ensuring correct interpretation.
✅ Summary Table:
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Authority | High Court |
| Applicable Cases | Pending in Subordinate Courts |
| Key Condition | Substantial constitutional question involved |
| High Court Action | Withdraw and decide, or decide question and return |
| Objective | Preserve uniform constitutional interpretation |
| Reviewability | Subject to judicial review if discretion is misused |
RELATED Blog
0 comments