Understanding Article 247 of Indian Constitution: Key Insights
- Rare Labs
- Sep 28, 2025
- 16 min read
At its heart, Article 247 of the Indian Constitution gives Parliament a unique and powerful tool: the ability to establish additional, specialised courts. This isn't just about building more courthouses; it's about creating dedicated forums for the better administration of laws made by Parliament, especially those that fall under the Union List.
Getting to Grips With Article 247
Think of India's judicial system like a network of incredibly capable general-purpose hospitals. They can handle almost anything you throw at them, from minor disputes to major constitutional questions. But what happens when a very specific, technical, and high-volume problem emerges—say, a flood of cases related to a new national tax law? Sending every single one of those cases to the general courts would be like sending every person with a specific heart condition to a general practitioner. It would clog the system, lead to massive delays, and strain the available resources.
Article 247 is the constitutional green light for Parliament to build the equivalent of a specialised heart clinic. It empowers the national legislature to set up courts that focus exclusively on laws passed by the Union government. This is a brilliant piece of constitutional engineering within India's federal structure, designed to make sure national laws are enforced effectively and uniformly across every state and territory.
To make this easier to grasp, here’s a quick overview of what Article 247 covers.
Article 247 at a Glance
The table below breaks down the core components of this constitutional provision into simple terms.
Key Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
Grant of Power | Parliament is given the exclusive authority to create additional courts. |
Purpose | To ensure better administration and enforcement of laws made by Parliament. |
Scope | The power is limited to laws concerning matters on the Union List. |
Nature of Power | It is an enabling provision, meaning Parliament may establish these courts but is not required to do so. |
Impact on Existing Courts | These specialised courts work alongside the existing judicial hierarchy to ease its burden. |
This power is a practical solution to a very real problem, showing how our Constitution was designed to adapt to the country's evolving needs.
Why Do We Even Need This?
The framers of the Constitution were realists. They foresaw the immense workload that would eventually land on the judiciary's shoulders. By giving Parliament the power to create specialised courts, they were trying to solve several key challenges before they became unmanageable:
Tackling the Judicial Backlog: It provides a direct mechanism to divert specific types of cases away from the already overburdened High Courts and lower courts.
Building Genuine Expertise: These courts can be staffed by judges and legal professionals who live and breathe specific fields, like company law, debt recovery, or environmental regulations. This deep knowledge is invaluable.
Delivering Justice on Time: With streamlined procedures and subject-matter experts at the helm, cases can move much faster. This helps prevent the age-old problem of justice delayed being justice denied.
This isn't just about adding more seats on the bench; it's a strategic lever to improve the overall efficiency and health of our justice delivery system. The power to create these forums is absolutely essential for a complex and growing nation like India.
Connecting the Constitutional Dots
When you start to understand one part of the Constitution, it often shines a light on others. For instance, while Article 247 is about creating courts for Union laws, other articles carefully define the roles and responsibilities of different bodies. Seeing how these pieces fit together gives you a much richer appreciation for the Constitution's design.
To broaden your perspective, you might find it interesting to explore our guide on Article 320 of the Indian Constitution, which outlines the functions of the Public Service Commissions.
Parliament's Power to Establish Courts Under Article 247
Article 247 of the Indian Constitution gives Parliament a very specific and potent tool to shape the country's judicial system. This isn't just a general power to set up more courts; it’s a focused authority that allows the Union legislature to create a specialised judicial network designed purely for the administration of central laws. It’s a precise power, and it comes with its own set of rules.
The key to unlocking Article 247 lies in its opening phrase: "notwithstanding anything in this Chapter." This isn't just legal fluff. It's what lawyers call an overriding clause. It signals that when Parliament acts under this article, its power takes priority over other provisions in the same chapter that otherwise divide legislative powers between the Centre and the states.
Think of the Constitution's legislative lists as a city's master plan, with different zones marked for specific purposes. The "notwithstanding" clause in Article 247 acts like a special permit. It allows the central government to build a crucial piece of infrastructure—say, a specialised court—where it's needed most for national laws, even if the original "zoning" might have suggested otherwise.
A Direct Link to the Union List
This power isn't a free-for-all. It's firmly anchored to laws passed on matters found in the Union List (List I of the Seventh Schedule). This is a crucial limitation. The Union List covers subjects deemed to be of national importance, where uniform laws are needed across the country.
So, what kind of laws are we talking about? The Union List is extensive, but some key areas include:
Defence and all related matters concerning the armed forces.
Banking, currency, and foreign exchange, the lifeblood of the national economy.
Foreign affairs, including treaties and diplomatic relations.
Railways, airways, and national highways, the arteries of national transport.
Corporation tax and customs duties, which are major sources of Union revenue.
This connection means a court set up under Article 247 might be a tribunal for complex banking fraud, a specialised court for corporate law disputes, or a body to handle cases related to interstate commerce. The idea is simple: if Parliament can make the law, it must also have the power to create the right forum to enforce it effectively.
The In-Built Constitutional Safeguards
While Article 247 grants significant authority, it doesn’t operate in isolation. The Indian Constitution is built on a strong foundation of checks and balances, and this provision is no different. The ultimate safeguard is the principle of judicial independence, which is not just a feature but a part of the Constitution's basic structure.
Parliament can create these additional courts, but it can't design them to chip away at the independence or authority of the higher judiciary. The Supreme Court has been very clear on this. It has repeatedly affirmed that while Parliament can establish specialised tribunals, the High Courts' fundamental powers of judicial review and superintendence cannot be stripped away.
Key TakeawayArticle 247 is a tool for administrative convenience and judicial efficiency. It's meant to supplement the existing court system with specialised bodies, not to create a parallel or supreme one.
This ensures that any court established under this provision remains part of the broader judicial hierarchy and its decisions can be scrutinised by constitutional courts, thereby upholding the rule of law.
For any legal professional or student digging into this, grasping these details is vital. Modern tools like Draft Bot Pro can really speed up the research process. Instead of spending hours searching through case law, you could ask the AI to pull up all the key judgments that have interpreted the "notwithstanding" clause or examined the relationship between parliamentary power and judicial independence in this context. This helps you get to the heart of how Article 247 functions in the real world, much faster.
Insights Into Why Specialized Courts Are Necessary
When you look at Article 247 of the Indian Constitution, it isn’t just another clause tacked on for completeness. It’s more like a safety valve, carefully crafted to ease pressure on a system that was bound to groan under India’s immense caseload. From the very beginning, lawmakers knew that without a mechanism to offload certain disputes, the courts would choke on ever-mounting backlogs.
Think of our judicial network like a busy city’s road system. The High Courts and lower courts are the main highways. They carry every kind of legal “traffic.” Now imagine millions of cars—each one a pending case—all trying to merge onto those roads simultaneously. Gridlock is inevitable. Justice, which should move swiftly, crawls to a halt.
The backlog isn’t new. Back in the early 1990s, public sector banks alone had lodged over 1.5 million cases, amounting to more than Rs 56.22 billion in disputed dues. Add another 300-odd cases from other financial institutions—totalling Rs 3.91 billion—and you see why civil courts were drowning. Article 247 was the direct response, laying the groundwork for specialised forums to tackle this overload.
The Role Of Specialised Courts As A Relief Valve
Specialised courts set up under Article 247 work like dedicated express lanes on that judicial highway. They whisk away a specific type of dispute—corporate insolvency, environmental violations or debt recovery—so the main routes stay clear.
These courts deliver results faster because they offer:
Expert Judges: Presiding officers who live and breathe their subject matter. For instance, a National Company Law Tribunal judge brings years of corporate law experience to the bench.
Bespoke Procedures: Each tribunal tailors its rules, cutting out unnecessary steps that slow down general courts.
Focused Mandate: With a single area of law to handle, there’s no juggling of unrelated case types.
By rerouting technical and financial disputes into these express lanes, High Courts and subordinate judges can concentrate on criminal appeals, constitutional questions and other critical matters.
Key InsightCourts created under Article 247 don’t just quicken judgments in one sphere—they rejuvenate the entire legal system by easing its overall burden.
Modernising Justice Delivery
Fast forward to today, and the logic behind Article 247 shines even brighter. India’s economy has diversified, new regulations keep emerging, and generalist courts often struggle to stay on top of niche sectors like intellectual property or securities law.
That’s where bespoke tribunals prove their worth. They evolve alongside changing statutes, ensuring that complex disputes get heard by experts—and resolved more efficiently. For students and practitioners alike, seeing how historical debates informed Article 247 deepens your grasp of constitutional design and real-world problem-solving. A legal AI like Draft Bot Pro can provide instant access to these historical insights, helping you connect past intentions with present-day applications.
Putting Theory into Practice: Real-World Courts Under Article 247
Understanding the text of Article 247 of the Indian Constitution is one thing, but seeing how it shapes our justice system is where its true significance comes to light. This isn't just a dusty legal provision; it's a powerful tool Parliament has used time and again to create specialised courts for some of India's most complex legal problems.
Think of these courts as the living, breathing results of Article 247. Each one tells a story of how Parliament spotted a bottleneck in the system, invoked its constitutional power, and built a dedicated channel to deliver quicker, more expert justice. Let’s dive into a few key examples.
The Debt Recovery Tribunals (DRTs)
For years, our public sector banks were caught in a legal logjam. When big borrowers defaulted, the only way forward was a long, drawn-out civil suit. It was a notoriously slow process that tied up staggering amounts of public money, putting a brake on the entire economy.
The existing civil courts were simply not equipped for this. Already drowning in a sea of diverse cases, they couldn't give these complex financial disputes the priority or specialised attention they needed.
This is where Article 247 came into play. Parliament passed the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, creating a new kind of court: the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
The Problem: A massive backlog of loan default cases was choking the civil court system and freezing bank capital.
The Union Law: The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
The Impact: DRTs created a dedicated, fast-track route for banks to recover their money, slashing the time it took to resolve these cases compared to the old system.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
Before 2016, company law was a fragmented mess. A single corporate issue could bounce between the Company Law Board (CLB), the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), and various High Courts. This confusing web of jurisdictions caused endless delays and uncertainty.
To fix this and bring Indian corporate law into the 21st century, Parliament passed the Companies Act, 2013. This led to the creation of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and its appeal body, the NCLAT. Suddenly, there was a single, specialised court for most company-related disputes. More importantly, it became the go-to authority for the game-changing Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Big PictureThe NCLT is a perfect example of how Article 247 isn't just for clearing backlogs. It's also a tool for modernising our entire legal framework to meet new economic realities, like the need for a swift and predictable insolvency process.
The image below offers a great visual summary of how Parliament's power to create such courts fits within India's federal structure.
As you can see, Parliament holds the ultimate authority when it comes to laws on the Union List, which is the very foundation of Article 247.
Comparison of Specialised Courts Under Article 247
To see how these different bodies fit together, let's compare them side-by-side. The following table breaks down a few key tribunals, showing how each was created by Parliament to address a specific need under a Union law.
Court/Tribunal | Governing Act | Primary Purpose | Relevant Union List Subject |
|---|---|---|---|
Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) | Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 | To fast-track the recovery of bad loans owed to banks and financial institutions. | Banking (Entry 45) |
National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) | Companies Act, 2013 | To handle corporate disputes, insolvency, and other matters under company law. | Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations (Entry 44) |
Special CBI Courts | Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 | To conduct swift trials for corruption and economic offences investigated by the CBI. | Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation (Entry 8) |
Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) | Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 | To adjudicate disputes and appeals regarding service matters for military personnel. | Naval, military and air forces; any other armed forces of the Union (Entry 2) |
This comparison highlights the targeted nature of Article 247's application. Parliament doesn't create these courts on a whim; each is carefully designed to serve a distinct purpose laid out in the Union List. For those struggling to map these acts to specific Union List entries, a legal AI like Draft Bot Pro can instantly provide this information, offering valuable insights for assignments and casework.
Specialised CBI Courts
Let's be honest, cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are a different breed. They often involve complex financial webs, mountains of technical evidence, and high-profile accused. Trying these cases in regular criminal courts, which deal with everything from petty theft to murder, was always a challenge.
The specialisation needed to untangle a major corruption scandal just wasn't there. To solve this, Parliament, using its powers under laws like the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, set up Special CBI Courts. These courts exist for one reason: to hear cases brought by the CBI.
The judges in these courts live and breathe anti-corruption laws. They develop a deep expertise that allows them to cut through the complexity and expedite trials, which is absolutely vital for ensuring public accountability.
Judicial Interpretation and Constitutional Insights
While Article 247 of the Indian Constitution gives Parliament the authority to create additional courts, this power doesn't operate in a vacuum. It’s not an absolute right. The judiciary, with the Supreme Court at its helm, acts as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, making sure this power is used within well-defined limits. Think of the courts as guardians, constantly balancing parliamentary legislative power with the core principles of India's democracy.
Over the years, numerous judgments have sculpted the practical application of Article 247. This judicial oversight has been crucial in preventing the article from being used to consolidate power or weaken the country's established judicial framework. At its heart, the legal debate has always been about a single, critical question: How can we create specialised courts to deliver better justice without undermining the authority of the High Courts and the Supreme Court?
The Basic Structure Doctrine as a Safeguard
The most powerful check on Parliament's authority here is the ‘basic structure doctrine’. This is a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. In simple terms, it says that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot touch its fundamental soul—features like democracy, federalism, secularism, and, crucially for this discussion, judicial independence.
So, when Parliament passes a law to set up a new tribunal, the courts put it under the microscope, using the basic structure doctrine as their lens. They ask some tough questions:
Does this new body step on the toes of the High Courts, taking over their core judicial functions?
Are its members genuinely independent, or are they susceptible to influence from the government?
Is there a clear path for its decisions to be reviewed by a higher court like a High Court or the Supreme Court?
If the law fails any of these tests, it risks being declared unconstitutional. This ensures that any new courts created under Article 247 are there to supplement the existing judicial system, not to replace it. From a historical standpoint, the "notwithstanding" clause in Article 247 was designed to ensure that when it came to laws on the Union List, Parliament’s power would prevail over any conflicting state provisions. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld this power, but only as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution's basic structure. You can explore more about this delicate constitutional balance and learn more about this perspective.
Preserving the High Courts' Power of Superintendence
Another principle the judiciary fiercely protects is the High Courts' power of superintendence, granted by Article 227. This power gives every High Court the authority to supervise all lower courts and tribunals within its territory. Landmark judgments have made one thing crystal clear: this supervisory power cannot be stripped away by an ordinary act of Parliament.
Key InsightThe Supreme Court has consistently ruled that even when Parliament sets up specialised tribunals under Article 247, these new bodies fall under the judicial review and supervisory eye of the High Courts. This crucial check prevents them from becoming isolated pockets of unchecked authority.
What does this mean in practice? It means that if a specialised tribunal for environmental issues makes a decision you disagree with, you still have the right to challenge that decision in the relevant High Court. This system creates a vital layer of accountability, ensuring consistency and upholding the rule of law across the board.
How Legal AI Can Help Decipher Judicial Precedents
For any lawyer or law student, keeping up with these complex judicial precedents can be a real headache. This is exactly where a legal AI assistant like Draft Bot Pro comes in handy. Instead of spending hours digging through case law archives, you can simply ask it to pull up all the key Supreme Court judgments that connect Article 247 with the basic structure doctrine. It’s a fast and efficient way to grasp the constitutional guardrails that shape this parliamentary power.
As you dive deeper, you might also find it useful to check out our detailed guide on Article 130 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the seat of the Supreme Court. Reading about it offers another angle on our nation’s judicial architecture and helps you connect the dots between different parts of the Constitution for a more holistic understanding.
How Legal AI Can Simplify Constitutional Research
Anyone who's tried to untangle the complexities of Article 247 of the Indian Constitution knows it's no small feat. You're not just reading the text; you're diving into decades of judicial interpretation and legislative history. Whether you're a law student prepping for a moot court or a seasoned lawyer building a case, the research is often a slow, manual slog. This is where a legal AI tool like Draft Bot Pro can feel like a game-changer.
Think about what it takes to grasp the full weight of the "notwithstanding" clause in Article 247. The old way meant hours buried in library stacks, sifting through database after database, and leafing through bulky case law digests. With a legal AI like Draft Bot Pro, that entire process is condensed from hours into minutes.
Streamlining Legal Analysis
Instead of keyword guesswork, you can simply ask a direct question: "Show me all Supreme Court cases that discuss establishing tribunals under Article 247." A tool like Draft Bot Pro immediately scans its extensive database and pulls up a clean list of relevant judgments. You get summaries and direct links, saving you an incredible amount of time and ensuring you don't accidentally miss a critical precedent.
It goes deeper than just case law, too. Legal AI can dig up historical context that's often buried. For instance, it can find specific passages from the Constituent Assembly debates, giving you insights into the framers' original intent for giving Parliament this power. That kind of background knowledge can add real substance to a legal argument.
By automating the grunt work of finding case law, historical documents, and academic articles, legal AI frees you up to focus on what really matters: critical thinking and building a winning strategy.
Practical Use Cases for Legal Professionals
The benefits aren't just theoretical; they have an immediate impact on day-to-day legal work. Here are a few real-world examples:
Moot Court Preparation: A moot team could use Draft Bot Pro to find counter-arguments and supporting cases in seconds, helping them anticipate challenges and strengthen their stance.
Building Stronger Arguments: A practicing advocate can use Draft Bot Pro to cross-reference their interpretation of a statute against all relevant judicial rulings, making sure their case is built on solid ground.
This level of efficiency isn't just about finding cases faster. The same core idea behind using AI to take meeting notes can be applied to client consultations or court proceedings, capturing every important detail. A well-designed [AI legal research tool for India](https://www.draftbotpro.com/ai-legal-research-tool-india) puts this power at your fingertips, boosting both the accuracy and overall quality of your work.
Common Questions About Article 247
To wrap things up, let's tackle some of the most common questions that pop up when discussing Article 247 of the Indian Constitution. Getting these straight can clear up a lot of confusion about how this provision actually works on the ground.
Can a State Government Establish Courts Under Article 247?
Absolutely not. This power belongs exclusively to the Parliament of India.
The reason is simple: Article 247 is specifically designed to support laws made from the Union List. Since those laws are the central government's responsibility, it only makes sense that Parliament holds the authority to create the courts needed to enforce them.
State legislatures can, and do, establish their own courts, but they do so for laws falling under the State List, operating under different constitutional powers.
Are Courts Under Article 247 Inferior to High Courts?
It's better to think of them as specialised, not inferior. Their entire purpose is to bring deep expertise to a very specific area of law, whether it's tax disputes or environmental regulations.
In the grand scheme of the judicial hierarchy, decisions from these tribunals and specialised courts can often be appealed to a High Court or even the Supreme Court. This structure ensures there's always a path for review, maintaining a clear chain of judicial command.
A Quick InsightUntangling the web of judicial hierarchy and constitutional powers can be a real challenge. The key is to start by asking the right questions—that’s the foundation for any solid legal argument or research project.
Is Parliament Forced to Create These Additional Courts?
Not at all. Article 247 gives Parliament a discretionary power, not a mandatory duty. The wording is crucial here; it says Parliament "may by law provide for the establishment" of these courts.
The decision to actually set up a new court comes down to a practical assessment. Parliament looks at factors like the sheer volume of cases, how complex the issues are, and the current burden on existing courts. If they decide a specialised court is necessary for the "better administration" of a particular law, they'll act.
Feeling stuck on how these rules apply to a specific situation? A legal AI tool like Draft Bot Pro can be a massive help. You can ask direct questions about certain laws and their judicial history to get sourced answers in moments, speeding up your research and making it far more precise.
Draft Bot Pro is the most affordable and verifiable legal AI built for Indian lawyers and law students. From expert legal drafting using your own PDFs to accurate legal research backed by real sources, our tool helps you work smarter, not harder. Join over 46,379 legal professionals and start your free trial today at https://www.draftbotpro.com.