Section 2 in THE CONSTITUTION (FORTY-THIRD AMENDMENT) ACT, 1977
2. It is considered that articles 32A, 131A and 228A cause, hardship to persons living in distant parts in India. Further, article 32A would lead to multiplicity of proceedings as cases relating to the validity of a State law which could be disposed of by the Supreme Court itself have to be heard first by the High Court. The minimum number of Judges in every case wherein the constitutional validity of a law is involved, however unsubstantial the challenge might be, results in valuable judicial time being lost in hearing and rejecting submissions that have no substance. The Supreme Court has, in M/s. Misrilal Jain vs. the State of Orissa and Others (AIR 1977 SC 1686) expressed the hope that article 144A would engage the prompt attention of Parliament and would be amended so as to leave to the court itself the duty to decide how large a Bench should decide any particular case. In fact, a number of cases have been held up in the Supreme Court and High Courts as a result of the aforementioned articles.
