Article 147 gives courts power to interpret the Government of India Act, 1935 as if it were still the main law of the land.

It does not revive or give ongoing force to the 1935 Act. It only says that if a genuine legal question about that old Act (or the 1947 Act) comes up, it can be treated procedurally like a constitutional interpretation question for appeals and references under Articles 132, 133, and 228.

The Constitution of India

Article 147

Interpretation

In this Chapter and in Chapter V of Part VI, references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution shall be construed as including references to any substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Government of India Act, 1935 (including any enactment amending or supplementing that Act), or of any Order in Council or order made thereunder, or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, or of any order made thereunder.§

Why this exists

Before 1950, British India was governed under the Government of India Act, 1935, and the transition to independence was carried out through the Indian Independence Act, 1947 and various Orders in Council. Many legal disputes—about property, service rights, princely states' integration, and administrative powers—arose under these older instruments and continued even after the Constitution came into force. Articles 132 and 133 allow appeals to the Supreme Court, and Article 228 lets High Courts refer cases, when a 'substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution' arises. Article 147 ensures that courts can use the same appeal and reference routes for genuine legal puzzles about these pre-Constitution instruments, instead of leaving such questions in a legal limbo.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Article 147 gives courts power to interpret the Government of India Act, 1935 as if it were still the main law of the land.
Fact: It does not revive or give ongoing force to the 1935 Act. It only says that if a genuine legal question about that old Act (or the 1947 Act) comes up, it can be treated procedurally like a constitutional interpretation question for appeals and references under Articles 132, 133, and 228.