The Constitution of India
Article 255
Requirements as to recommendations and previous sanctions to be regarded as matters of procedure only
No Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State and no provision in any such Act, shall be invalid by reason only that some recommendation or previous sanction required by this Constitution was not given, if assent to that Act was given —
(a) where the recommendation required was that of the Governor, either by the Governor or by the President;
(b) where the recommendation required was that of the Rajpramukh, either by the Rajpramukh or by the President;
(c) where the recommendation or previous sanction required was that of the President, by the President.
Why this exists
The Constitution requires certain recommendations or prior approvals (for example, before introducing Money Bills, or before some state laws restricting trade) as procedural safeguards, often to protect the interests of other governments or the federal balance. Legislative processes are complex, and officials sometimes miss these procedural steps by oversight. Article 255 prevents such technical lapses from destroying otherwise valid laws, by treating these requirements as curable procedural matters rather than rigid preconditions — as long as the appropriate constitutional authority (President, Governor, or historically the Rajpramukh) ultimately gives assent. This reflects a broader constitutional principle of not letting technicalities defeat substantive legislative will, drawing on similar validating provisions from the Government of India Act, 1935.
How courts read it
Courts have generally read the recommendation and previous-sanction requirements referred to in Article 255 as directory rather than mandatory in effect, meaning their absence does not automatically void a law if the President (or Governor) has given assent. In Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, the Supreme Court examined a State law restricting trade that arguably needed the President's previous sanction under Article 304(b), and discussed how Article 255 operates to validate such laws where presidential assent was given, treating the sanction requirement as a matter of procedure rather than a rigid condition precedent to validity.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Article 255 means recommendations and prior sanctions required by the Constitution don't really matter.
Fact: They still matter and should normally be obtained beforehand; Article 255 only prevents a law from being struck down solely because that step was skipped, provided proper assent was still given afterward. - Myth: Article 255 cures any procedural defect in lawmaking.
Fact: It applies specifically to missing recommendations or previous sanctions required by the Constitution, not to every kind of procedural irregularity in passing a law. - Myth: The Rajpramukh reference means this part of the Article is still actively used today.
Fact: Rajpramukh was a title for heads of certain former princely-state unions before India's 1956 states reorganisation; that clause is now of largely historical relevance.