Article 13 – State Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights – UPSC Notes
Article 13: Ensuring Fundamental Rights
Article 13 is a crucial aspect of our legal system, providing teeth to fundamental rights and making them enforceable in the courts. It focuses on the impact of fundamental rights on state action and serves as a guide for judicial review.
Key Points:
- Objective: Secure the paramountcy of the Constitution, particularly regarding fundamental rights.
- Judicial Review: Article 13 is often referred to as the Charter for judicial review, empowering both the Supreme Court (under Article 32) and High Courts (under Article 226) to review laws, past and future.
- Constitutional Paramountcy: Courts can declare a law unconstitutional if it contradicts the rights in Part III of the Constitution.
Article 13 Clauses:
- Clause (1): Declares all pre-Constitution laws void if inconsistent with Part III provisions.
- Clause (2): Prohibits the state from making laws that abridge or take away fundamental rights, declaring such laws void to the extent of contravention.
- Clause (3): Broad definition of ‘law,’ encompassing permanent laws, temporary laws (e.g., ordinances), statutory instruments (delegated legislation), and non-legislative sources like custom.
- Judicial Review Scope: Not limited to legislation but includes any form that may violate fundamental rights.
- Clause (4): Excludes application to constitutional amendments made under Article 368.
Analysis of Article 13:
- Clauses (1) and (2): Laws inconsistent or contravening fundamental rights are void to the extent of the violation.
- Doctrine of Severability: Courts apply this doctrine to separate the valid portion of a law from the invalid portion.
The Doctrine of Severability: Key Principles
The Doctrine of Severability, extensively discussed in the case of R.M.D.C v. State of Bombay, establishes crucial principles for determining the validity of statutes. Here are the key principles laid down by the court:
- Legislative Intent as Determining Factor:
- The intention of the legislature is pivotal in deciding whether the valid part of a statute can be separated from the invalid part.
- Inseparability Resulting in Invalidity:
- If the valid and non-valid parts of a statute are inseparable, it leads to the inevitable invalidity of the entire statute.
- Independence of the Statute After Invalid Portion Removal:
- If a statute stands independently after removing the invalid portion, it will be upheld, even if the rest becomes unenforceable.
- Invalidation of Whole Scheme if Intended to Be One:
- If valid and invalid parts, though separable, were intended to be part of the same scheme, the entire scheme will be invalid.
- Thin and Truncated Nature Leading to Invalidation:
- If invalidating the valid part leaves the rest too thin and truncated, the entire statute will be invalidated.
- Determining Severability by Reading the Statute as a Whole:
- Severability is determined by reading the statute in its entirety, not by examining specific provisions or parts in isolation.
- Consideration of Legislative Intent:
- To understand legislative intent, factors such as history, object, title, and preamble can be legitimately taken into account.
Read more in detail – Doctrine of Severability
Incorporation of Doctrine in Pre-Constitutional Laws:
In the case of Keshavan Madhava Menon vs State of Bombay, the court clarified that a pre-Constitution law inconsistent with a fundamental right doesn’t become void “in toto or for all purposes or for all times or for all persons.” The law becomes void only to the extent of its inconsistency with the fundamental right.
The court emphasized that the existing law, due to its inconsistency with a fundamental right, isn’t completely obliterated from the Statute Book. Instead, it enters a dormant or moribund state, overshadowed or eclipsed by the violated fundamental right. The only effect is a restriction to the extent of inconsistency with the fundamental right.
Understanding “Law” and “Law in Force” under Article 13(3):
Definition of the Term “Law” under Article 13(3):
Under Article 13(3), the term “law” is interpreted broadly and includes:
- Permanent Laws: Enacted by Parliament or State legislatures.
- Temporary Laws: Such as ordinances issued by the President or State Governors.
- Statutory Instruments: In the form of delegated legislation, like orders, byelaws, rules, regulations, or notifications.
- Non-Legislative Sources: Customs or usages having the force of law.
Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala:
In this case, Justice Chandrachud overruled the Narasu Appa Mali judgment. The matter involved challenging the custom of barring women from the Sabarimala temple. The pivotal question was whether customs fall within the purview of Article 13. The Apex Court addressed this issue.
Constitutional Amendment as ‘Law’ under Article 13(2):
The first consideration of whether a constitutional amendment qualifies as a ‘law’ under Article 13(2) occurred in Shankari Prasad vs Union of India. The Court ruled that the term ‘law’ in Article 13 encompasses rules or regulations made through ordinary legislative power but excludes amendments to the Constitution under Article 368.
- Amendments under Article 368: Not affected by Article 13(2).
- Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan, 1965: The Supreme Court reiterated this stance, maintaining that Article 13(2) does not impact amendments made under Article 368.
FAQs on Article 13
1. What is the primary objective of Article 13 in the legal system?
- Article 13 aims to secure the paramountcy of the Constitution, especially concerning fundamental rights, making them enforceable through judicial review.
2. How does Article 13 contribute to judicial review, and who has the power to review laws under it?
- Article 13 is often called the Charter for judicial review, empowering both the Supreme Court (under Article 32) and High Courts (under Article 226) to review laws, both past and future.
3. What does Clause (1) of Article 13 state, and how does it impact pre-Constitution laws?
- Clause (1) declares all pre-Constitution laws void if inconsistent with provisions in Part III of the Constitution, emphasizing the supremacy of constitutional rights.
4. Can the state make laws that infringe upon fundamental rights under Article 13?
- No, Clause (2) of Article 13 prohibits the state from making laws that abridge or take away fundamental rights, declaring such laws void to the extent of contravention.
5. What is the broad definition of ‘law’ under Clause (3) of Article 13, and what does it encompass?
- Clause (3) provides a comprehensive definition of ‘law,’ including permanent laws, temporary laws, statutory instruments, and non-legislative sources like custom.
6. Does Article 13 only apply to legislation, or does it cover other forms as well?
- Article 13’s scope of judicial review is not limited to legislation; it includes any form that may violate fundamental rights.
7. What does Clause (4) of Article 13 exclude from its application?
- Clause (4) excludes the application of Article 13 to constitutional amendments made under Article 368.
8. How do courts apply the Doctrine of Severability in analyzing laws inconsistent with fundamental rights?
- Courts apply the Doctrine of Severability to separate the valid portion of a law from the invalid portion, ensuring that the valid part remains enforceable.
9. What are the key principles of the Doctrine of Severability, as laid down in the R.M.D.C v. State of Bombay case?
- The key principles include considering legislative intent, inseparability leading to invalidity, independence of the statute after removing the invalid portion, invalidation of the whole scheme if intended to be one, and thin and truncated nature leading to invalidation.
10. How does Article 13 address pre-Constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights, as clarified in the Keshavan Madhava Menon case?
- Inconsistent pre-Constitutional laws do not become void “in toto or for all purposes or for all times or for all persons.” They become void only to the extent of inconsistency with the fundamental right, entering a dormant state. The law is restricted to the extent of its inconsistency.
For Complete Polity Click Here.
Join our Official Telegram Channel HERE
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel HERE
Follow our Instagram ID HERE
