Statutory continuity of existing Tribunals via non-obstante clause is not manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional.

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, which amended Section 104 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (“2020 Code”) by inserting sub-section (1A).

This amendment allowed existing Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals (constituted under the repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) to continue functioning until new tribunals under the 2020 Code became functional.

The petitioners had previously challenged a notification (S.O 5683(E)) on similar grounds, which was repelled in Suresh Kumar M. K. v. Union of India, 2026 (2) KHC 371, currently pending under writ appeal.

The petitioners argued the amendment was “manifestly arbitrary” and ultra vires the 2020 Code.

1. Whether the insertion of Section 104(1A) into the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 via the Amendment Act of 2026 is unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary, or violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether an amending provision containing a non-obstante clause can be challenged on the ground of being inconsistent with other provisions of the same enactment.

The court primarily applied the doctrine of "manifest arbitrariness" under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as defined in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), which establishes that a law is manifestly arbitrary if it is disproportionate, excessive, or otherwise manifestly unreasonable.

The court also applied the principle of the "non-obstante clause," which allows a specific provision to operate despite any contrary or inconsistent provisions within the same statute.

legislative competence and the "basic structure" doctrine are the primary thresholds for challenging the validity of Parliamentary legislation.

The court reasoned that the petitioners failed to demonstrate how the amendment violated any fundamental rights, as there is no right to have disputes adjudicated only by bodies constituted under the new 2020 Code.

Regarding the claim of inconsistency, the court held that since sub-section (1A) contains a non-obstante clause, it prevails over any other conflicting provisions in the 2020 Code.

Applying the Shayara Bano test, the court found the amendment—which ensures the continuity of adjudicatory functions during a transition period—was neither capricious nor irrational, thus failing to meet the threshold of "manifest arbitrariness".

The court also noted the lack of any challenge to the Parliament's legislative competence or the basic structure of the Constitution.

The court dismissed the writ petition in limine, holding that no grounds were made out to sustain a constitutional challenge against the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026. The request to tag the petition with the pending writ appeal was denied as the issues were deemed distinct.