Article 13 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 13 of the Constitution of India is a foundational provision in Part III (Fundamental Rights) that deals with laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. It plays a crucial role in the protection and enforcement of fundamental rights in India.
🧾 Text of Article 13 – Constitution of India
Article 13(1):
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 this Part (Part III), shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
Article 13(2):
The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
Article 13(3):
In this article, unless the context otherwise requires—
(a) "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;
(b) "laws in force" includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.
Article 13(4):
Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368.
⚖️ Important Case Laws under Article 13
1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
Issue: Could a constitutional amendment violate fundamental rights?
Held: While Article 13(4) exempts constitutional amendments from Article 13, the "basic structure doctrine" was evolved. It held that amendments cannot destroy or alter the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes fundamental rights.
Significance: This case harmonized Article 13 with Article 368 (constitutional amendment).
2. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)
Issue: Validity of preventive detention law under Article 13.
Held: The court gave a narrow interpretation of fundamental rights and held that each fundamental right is distinct.
Later Overruled by: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which gave a broader and more liberal interpretation.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Held: Any law affecting personal liberty must not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 collectively.
Significance: Reinforced the test of reasonableness and due process. Laws inconsistent with this interpretation are void under Article 13.
4. State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills (1974)
Issue: Whether Article 13 applies to pre-constitutional laws.
Held: Yes, all pre-constitutional laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights are void to the extent of inconsistency under Article 13(1).
5. Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980)
Issue: Whether a constitutional amendment under Article 368 can be tested under Article 13.
Held: Reiterated that while Article 13(4) excludes constitutional amendments, they must not damage the basic structure which includes fundamental rights.
đź“Ś Key Takeaways
Article 13 ensures that no law can override Fundamental Rights.
It gives judicial review power to courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.
It differentiates between pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws.
Constitutional amendments are excluded from Article 13 but must adhere to the basic structure doctrine.
RELATED Blog
0 comments