Article 446 of the Costitution of India with Case law
🔷 Article 446 of the Constitution of India – Interpretation of the expression “District Judge”
🔹 Text of Article 446:
"In this Constitution, the expression 'District Judge' includes judge of a city civil court, additional district judge, joint district judge, assistant district judge, chief judge of a small cause court, chief presidency magistrate, additional chief presidency magistrate, sessions judge, additional sessions judge and assistant sessions judge."
🔹 Explanation and Purpose:
Article 446 is part of the transitory, special, and miscellaneous provisions in the Constitution.
It defines the term “District Judge” broadly for interpretational purposes, ensuring that various judicial officers exercising similar or equivalent powers are covered under the term, regardless of their formal designation.
🔹 Why is it Important?
Ensures uniform interpretation across the Constitution wherever the term “District Judge” is used.
Supports the judiciary’s functional classification, not just formal titles.
Allows for flexibility in including officers like:
City Civil Court Judges
Chief Presidency Magistrates
Sessions Judges, etc.
🔹 Constitutional Context:
The term “District Judge” appears in several constitutional provisions, including:
Article 233 – Appointment of District Judges
Article 234 – Recruitment of persons other than District Judges to judicial service
Article 235 – Control over subordinate courts
Article 446 ensures that these provisions apply not only to district judges in name, but also to officers performing equivalent judicial functions.
🔹 Key Judicial Pronouncements / Case Law:
✅ Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1987
Held:
The term “District Judge” under Articles 233 to 235 must be interpreted with reference to Article 446.
The Supreme Court clarified that judicial appointments to positions like Chief Presidency Magistrates and Sessions Judges also fall within the scope of “District Judge”.
✅ H.R. Deb v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 194
Discussed the scope of appointment under Article 233.
Reiterated that Article 446 broadens the ambit of the term "District Judge", and appointments must conform to constitutional procedure.
✅ K. Madhava Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 1980 SC 563
Confirmed that officers designated differently but performing judicial work equivalent to District Judges are to be included under Article 446 for constitutional purposes.
🔹 Summary Table:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Article Number | 446 |
| Provision Type | Interpretational / definitional |
| Definition of “District Judge” includes | City Civil Court Judge, Sessions Judges, Presidency Magistrates, etc. |
| Purpose | Broaden scope of “District Judge” for consistency across Constitution |
| Relevant For | Articles 233 to 235 (Judiciary provisions) |
| Important Cases | Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., H.R. Deb v. State of Bihar, K. Madhava Reddy v. State of A.P. |
🔹 Conclusion:
Article 446 plays a key supporting role in India’s judicial framework by ensuring that various judicial officers are constitutionally treated as “District Judges” despite differing official titles. This promotes uniformity, clarity, and flexibility in interpreting judicial provisions across the Constitution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments