The 20th Amendment of the Indian Constitution was passed in 1966. It may not be as well-known as some major amendments like the 42nd or 44th, but it p

20th Amendment of the Indian Constitution

The Constitution of India is a living document. It was adopted in 1950, and since then, it has been amended many times to meet the changing needs of the country. Each amendment has its own story—why it was brought in, what problems it solved, and how it shaped our governance system.

The 20th Amendment of the Indian Constitution was passed in 1966. It may not be as well-known as some major amendments like the 42nd or 44th, but it played a very important role in protecting the functioning of the judiciary, especially at the district court level. Without it, thousands of court judgments could have been declared invalid, creating chaos in the justice system.

This amendment was mainly about appointments and transfers of district judges. Some appointments had been declared invalid by the Supreme Court because they were not done according to the exact procedure written in the Constitution. If those appointments were invalid, then all the judgments passed by those judges would also become invalid. To avoid this crisis, Parliament decided to pass the 20th Amendment.

In this blog post, we will go step by step:

• Why the 20th Amendment became necessary

• What exactly it changed in the Constitution

• How it affected the judiciary and the public

• The advantages and criticisms of this amendment

• Its importance in the larger history of Indian constitutional amendments

Let us start with the background story.

Point	Details
Short title	Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966
New provision	Inserted Article 233A after Article 233
Purpose	To validate appointments, postings, transfers and judgments of district judges made before 1966
Who it protects	District judges who were otherwise eligible under Article 233 (judicial service or 7+ years advocate)
What it validates	Appointments, promotions, postings, transfers, and judgments/orders passed before the amendment
Limitations	Does not validate appointments of persons who were not eligible under Article 233
Scope	Applies only to district judges; not applicable to High Court or Supreme Court appointments
Date of commencement	22 December 1966 (on receiving President’s assent)
Positive effects	Restored legal certainty, saved thousands of judgments, and ensured continuity of courts
Criticism	Seen as retrospective, reduced strictness in following procedure, and risk of overuse

Table: Important points of the 20th Amendment to the Indian Constitution.

---

Background: What Went Wrong?

To understand why the 20th Amendment was needed, we must first look at how the Constitution deals with the appointment of judges in the states.

Articles 233 and 235

• Article 233: Says that district judges are appointed by the Governor of a State, but only after consulting the High Court of that State.
  It also sets eligibility conditions:

  1. A person already working in the state judicial service, or

  2. A lawyer/advocate with at least 7 years’ experience.

• Article 235: Gives the High Court the power of control over district and subordinate courts. This includes transfers, postings, promotions, and disciplinary action.

These two Articles were meant to ensure fairness, transparency, and independence in the judiciary.

The Problem

In practice, however, some states did not strictly follow these constitutional rules. For example:

• Some district judges were appointed without proper consultation with the High Court.

• Some judges were transferred or promoted by the Governor, even though that power actually lay with the High Court.

The matter reached the Supreme Court. The Court declared that such appointments and transfers were not valid because they violated the procedure in Articles 233 and 235.

Why This Was Dangerous

Once these appointments were declared invalid, a bigger problem arose:

• If the judge’s appointment itself was invalid, then all the judgments, orders, and sentences passed by him could also be challenged.

• This meant thousands of cases—civil disputes, criminal trials, appeals—were at risk of being reopened.

• In some states, especially Uttar Pradesh, the work of district courts was almost brought to a standstill. People began to lose confidence in the judiciary.

This situation created a judicial crisis. Without a quick solution, the justice delivery system at the district level could have collapsed.

That is when the government decided that the only way out was to amend the Constitution and validate these appointments and judgments through law.

Supreme Court’s Observations

In the 1960s, the Supreme Court gave some judgments where it found that appointments and transfers of district judges in certain states (like Uttar Pradesh) were not strictly according to Articles 233 and 235. For example:

• Some judges were appointed without proper consultation with the High Court.

• Some transfers were done by the Governor under Article 233, though that power actually belonged to the High Court under Article 235.

As a result, the appointments of many judges were declared invalid. This created a very serious problem. If a judge himself was not validly appointed, then all the judgments, orders, and sentences delivered by him also became doubtful.

Thousands of cases were at risk. Litigants started challenging decisions on the ground that the judge had no legal authority to decide. In some states, district courts almost came to a standstill.

---

The Need for an Amendment

The judgments of the Supreme Court in the 1960s, which declared several appointments and transfers of district judges invalid, created a situation of deep uncertainty in the Indian judiciary. The problem was not that the judges were unqualified, but that the exact procedure under Articles 233 and 235 had not been strictly followed by the authorities while making appointments or transfers. 

This technical defect meant that the very authority of those judges was in question. If their appointment was invalid, then all the judgments, orders, and sentences delivered by them also became doubtful. Thousands of criminal cases, civil suits, and appeals were at risk of being reopened. 

In states like Uttar Pradesh, the work of district courts almost came to a standstill. For the common people, this was a crisis of confidence—if judges themselves were not validly appointed, how could justice be trusted? 

It was clear that without a quick solution, the entire system of justice at the district level could collapse. To restore order and protect the validity of past judgments, Parliament had to step in. The only way to remove doubts permanently was through a constitutional amendment, and thus the Twentieth Amendment was introduced in 1966.

---

The 20th Amendment – What It Did

The Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Act, 1966 was passed to deal with this problem. It introduced a new Article called Article 233A.

Article 233A – Validation of Appointments and Judgments

The new Article 233A said:

1. Any appointment, posting, promotion, or transfer of a district judge made in a State before this amendment cannot be declared invalid just because it did not strictly follow Articles 233 or 235.

2. All judgments, orders, decrees, or sentences delivered by such district judges before this amendment will be treated as valid, even if their appointment or transfer had some irregularity.

3. However, this protection will not apply if the person was not eligible at all under Article 233. In other words, if someone who never qualified to be a district judge was wrongly appointed, his appointment and judgments cannot be validated.

Key Points

• The amendment was retrospective—it applied to past appointments and judgments.

• It did not apply to future cases. Future appointments had to strictly follow Articles 233 and 235.

• It was limited only to district judges, not to High Court or Supreme Court judges.

• It validated procedural defects, but not cases where a completely ineligible person was appointed.

---

Process of Passing the Amendment

The Constitution (Twentieth Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 25 November 1966 by the then Home Minister Y. B. Chavan. Initially it was named as the Twenty-third Amendment Bill, but later corrected to Twentieth Amendment.

• Parliamentary Debate and Passage - The Bill was discussed in both Houses of Parliament. Members recognized the urgent need to prevent judicial chaos caused by invalidated appointments. The Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on 3 December 1966. It was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 9 December 1966.

• Presidential Assent - After approval by both Houses, the Bill was sent to the President of India. The President gave his assent on 22 December 1966.

• Commencement - The Act came into force immediately on the same day, i.e., 22 December 1966.

• Impact of Speedy Action - The quick passage of this amendment showed Parliament’s seriousness in resolving the judicial crisis. Within less than a month, the constitutional problem was addressed and the judiciary was safeguarded.

Thus, within a short time, Parliament acted quickly to save the judiciary from collapsing into confusion.

---

Impact of the 20th Amendment

The 20th Amendment had a powerful and immediate impact on the Indian judicial system. By validating the appointments, postings, and transfers of district judges made before 1966, it restored legal certainty to thousands of judgments, orders, and decrees that were in danger of being declared invalid. 

This was extremely important because, without such validation, countless criminal and civil cases would have had to be reopened, creating chaos and delay in the justice delivery system. The amendment also ensured the continuity of district courts, which had almost come to a standstill in states like Uttar Pradesh due to doubts over the validity of judges. 

At the same time, it gave protection to judges who were otherwise eligible under Article 233, saving them from losing their positions because of procedural mistakes that were not their fault. By reducing litigation over such technical defects, the amendment also relieved the burden on higher courts and helped preserve public confidence in the judiciary. 

Citizens could continue to rely on the authority of district court decisions, knowing that they would not be struck down on technical grounds. Importantly, the amendment also maintained limits by refusing to validate appointments of ineligible persons, thereby balancing practicality with constitutional discipline.

Criticism of the Amendment

Although the 20th Amendment solved a serious judicial crisis, it also drew criticism from legal scholars and constitutional experts. 

The first concern was that it introduced a form of retrospective lawmaking, which goes against the principle of rule of law. If an appointment was invalid at the time it was made, critics argued, it should not later be declared valid by an amendment, as this weakens the certainty of constitutional procedures. 

Another criticism was that it could encourage carelessness in following the Constitution, because authorities might assume that procedural mistakes could always be corrected later through validation. Some also felt that the amendment indirectly limited the role of judicial review, since the courts had declared certain appointments invalid, but Parliament stepped in to overrule this through an amendment. 

This raised concerns about separation of powers. In addition, there was the danger of overuse: if Parliament used similar amendments too often, it could reduce accountability and dilute constitutional discipline. 

However, defenders of the amendment pointed out that it was carefully limited and applied only to eligible judges, not to those who were unqualified. Even so, the criticism highlights the need to strictly follow constitutional procedures to avoid such situations in the future.

---

Relation with Other Amendments

The 20th Amendment came around the same time as the 18th and 19th Amendments in 1966. Those amendments also dealt with judicial and procedural matters. Together, they show that the mid-1960s were a time of active constitutional adjustments to ensure smooth governance.

Later, in 1973, the Kesavananda Bharati case introduced the doctrine of basic structure. According to this, Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its fundamental framework. But the 20th Amendment did not affect any basic structure. It was a small technical correction, not a big change in principles.

---

Example Scenarios

To understand the amendment better, let us look at some simple examples.

Example 1: Eligible but wrongly appointed

Mr. A is a lawyer with 10 years’ practice. He is eligible under Article 233. But while appointing him as district judge, the government did not properly consult the High Court. His appointment is defective.

Without the amendment: His judgments could be declared invalid.
With the amendment: His appointment and judgments are valid, since he was otherwise eligible.

Example 2: Ineligible person

Mr. B is a lawyer with only 3 years’ practice. He is not eligible under Article 233. Still, he was appointed as a district judge.

Even with the amendment: His appointment cannot be validated, because he was never eligible. His judgments may be invalid.

Example 3: Future cases

If in 1970, someone is irregularly appointed, the 20th Amendment does not apply. Future appointments must strictly follow Articles 233 and 235.

---

Today’s Relevance

Even though the 20th Amendment was passed almost six decades ago, it still holds important lessons for today’s constitutional and judicial system. Its main relevance lies in showing how Parliament can act swiftly to protect the stability of the judiciary when legal technicalities threaten to disrupt justice. The amendment demonstrated that while procedures are crucial, the larger goal of ensuring that justice is delivered without interruption must remain the priority. 

In the modern context, when questions are often raised about judicial appointments, transfers, and independence, the 20th Amendment serves as a reminder that constitutional safeguards must be followed carefully to avoid crises. At the same time, it underlines that Parliament has the power to provide corrective solutions in extraordinary situations, but such powers should be used sparingly and responsibly. 

The amendment also reinforced the importance of maintaining public confidence in the judiciary, something that remains as vital today as it was in 1966. In a time when people closely watch the integrity of courts, the spirit of the 20th Amendment highlights the balance between practical governance and constitutional discipline, ensuring that technical lapses do not damage the delivery of justice, while still upholding the principles of eligibility and fairness.

---

Conclusion

The 20th Amendment of the Indian Constitution may not be as famous as some other amendments, but it played a crucial role at a critical time. By inserting Article 233A, it validated past appointments, postings, transfers, and judgments of district judges that had been questioned due to procedural defects. This prevented massive disruption in the justice system.

It was a corrective amendment—one that solved a practical crisis without disturbing the basic structure of the Constitution. It restored confidence in the courts, protected the interests of litigants, and ensured continuity of justice.

At the same time, it reminds us that constitutional procedures must be followed carefully, because not all mistakes can be cured later. The amendment is a lesson in both constitutional discipline and practical governance.