Article 13 of Constitution of India
Article 13 – Laws Inconsistent with or in Derogation of Fundamental Rights
Text of Article 13:
All laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights void:
“All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part III (Fundamental Rights), shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency.”
Future laws and judicial review:
The State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III.
Any law made in contravention of Fundamental Rights is void to the extent of the contravention.
Definition of Law:
“Law” includes ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, or any other form of legislation made by Parliament or State Legislature.
Key Features of Article 13
Protection of Fundamental Rights:
Ensures all pre- and post-Constitution laws are consistent with Part III.
Judicial Review:
Courts have the power to strike down laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights.
Retrospective and Prospective Effect:
Applies to laws enacted before and after the Constitution came into force.
Supremacy of Constitution:
Article 13 reinforces the principle that Fundamental Rights are supreme.
Important Case Laws under Article 13
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to destroy its “basic structure”, including Fundamental Rights.
Emphasized that Article 13 protects the core of Fundamental Rights.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)
Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.
Article 13 was interpreted to mean that any law abridging Fundamental Rights is void.
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
The Supreme Court reiterated the basic structure doctrine, applying Article 13 to prevent constitutional amendments that violate Fundamental Rights.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Expanded the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), showing Article 13 ensures that laws restricting rights are reasonable and just.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, even if passed by Parliament, can be struck down.
Significance of Article 13
Protection Against Arbitrary Law:
Prevents state and legislature from enacting laws violating Fundamental Rights.
Judicial Safeguard:
Gives Supreme Court and High Courts the authority to declare laws void if inconsistent with Part III.
Foundation of Basic Structure Doctrine:
Forms the basis for the judiciary’s power to invalidate unconstitutional amendments.
Ensures Supremacy of Constitution:
Reinforces that Fundamental Rights cannot be abrogated by ordinary laws.
Conclusion
Article 13 is a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution that protects Fundamental Rights from being violated by state action or legislative enactments. Landmark judgments like Golaknath, Keshavananda Bharati, and Minerva Mills highlight the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional supremacy, ensuring that no law, whether old or new, can take away the basic rights of citizens.
RELATED Blog
0 comments