Fundamental Rights (Part 4)
Article 13
Law in consistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights. This Article ensures the supremacy of Fundamental Rights by declaring that any law which violates Fundamental Rights is invalid or void.
Provisions under Article 13 : –
Article 13(1)
Pre Constitution Law – All laws in force before 26th January 1950 that goes against Fundamental Rights becomes invalid to that extent or void to the extent of inconsistency. Because Colonial Laws violating equality or liberty.
Article 13(2)
Post Constitution Laws – The state shall not make any law which takes away Fundamental Rights such a law is void. Applies to laws made after 1950.
Article 13(3)
Meaning of Law –The term law includes Ordinances, Orders, Bye-laws, Rules, Regulations, Notification and Customs or usages having the force of law.
Or Anything that has legal force and is made by the State must obey Fundamental Rights.
Why it is Important?
- Prevents the state from bypassing Fundamental Rights by Making rules instead of laws.
- It brings customs and traditions under constitutional scrutiny.
- Strengthens protection of Fundamental Rights.
Article 13 (4)
Constitutional Amendments made under Article 368 are not treated as “law” for purpose of Article 13
In Golakhnath Case 1967bSupreme court said Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights. To override this Parliament passed 24th Constitutional Amendments Act 1971.
This amendment inserted Article 13(4)
Two important Doctrines related to Article 13
Doctrine of Severability
If only a part of the law is unconstitutional that part is removed rest will remains valid
Or
In simple words
If only a part of a law violates Fundamental Right, then only that unconstitutional part is removed. The remaining valid part of the law continues to operate.
Case A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras 1950
Doctrine of Eclipse: –
Pre constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not dead but become inactive revive if the inconsistency is removed
Or
In simple words,
If law made before the Constitution violates Fundamental Rights, it does not die completely. It only becomes inactive (eclipsed) and can revive later.
Case: –
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of MP 1955
Other important cases: –
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India 1951- Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights.
Golakhnath v. State of Punjab 1967- Fundamentals Rights cannot be amended (but later overruled).
Keshavnanda Bharati v. State of Kerala 1973- Parliament can amend Fundamental Rights but cannot destroyed Basic Structure.