Article 13 of the Indian Constitution holds a pivotal position in ensuring the sanctity of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. This article acts as a sentinel, guarding against laws that may encroach upon or abridge the fundamental liberties of citizens. In this detailed exploration, we delve into various aspects of Article 13, examining its impact on laws, pre-constitutional laws, post-constitutional laws, the doctrine of judicial review, the doctrine of eclipse, and the doctrine of severability.
Article 13 embodies a fundamental principle within the Indian Constitution – the supremacy of fundamental rights. It aims to prevent the creation of any law that abridges or contravenes the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.
Laws
Article 13(3)(a) broadly defines 'law' to encompass:
- Ordinances: Laws promulgated by the President when Parliament is not in session.
- Orders, bye-laws, rules, and regulations: Legislative instruments issued by executive bodies under delegated authority.
- Notifications: Administrative declarations by the government with statutory force.
- Customs or usages: Established practices recognized as having legal force.
Pre-Constitutional Laws
Article 13(1) explicitly declares that any pre-constitutional law, to the degree it contradicts fundamental rights, shall be void. This establishes the primacy of the Constitution over pre-existing legislation.
Article 13 of Indian Constitution does not have retroactive effect. The provision outlined in Article 13(1) is considered to have a prospective nature. As per the provisions of Article 13(1), any pre-constitutional or existing laws that were in force prior to the commencement of the Constitution shall be deemed null and void to the extent that they are found to be inconsistent with fundamental rights, effective from the date of the Constitution’s commencement. These entities do not lack legal existence from the outset (not void ab initio). However, so far as past acts are concerned such inconsistent laws are not wiped out.
- Example – A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Established that any existing law curtailing fundamental rights would become invalid after the Constitution's commencement.
Post-Constitutional Laws
Article 13(2) dictates that the State cannot legislate any law abridging or contravening fundamental rights. If enacted, said legislation shall be void to the extent of its inconsistency with these rights. According to Article 13(2) of Indian Constitution, it is not allowed for a state to enact legislation that deprives individuals of the rights granted under Part III. In the event that the state enacts such legislation, it will be considered null and void from the outset to the extent that it violates existing laws or regulations.
Judicial Review
The power of judicial review empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts to analyze the constitutional validity of laws. Courts strike down laws that contravene Part III of the Constitution.
- Example – Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Supreme Court recognized the 'basic structure doctrine,' limiting Parliament's amending power to preserve the Constitution's fundamental principles, including fundamental rights.
Doctrine of Eclipse
This doctrine states that pre-constitutional laws in conflict with fundamental rights do not become entirely void. They are merely 'eclipsed' or unenforceable. If a future constitutional amendment removes the conflict between the law and the fundamental right, the eclipsed law can be revived. The principle underlying this doctrine is that a law that contravenes fundamental rights does not become void ab initio but rather becomes unenforceable, thereby remaining in a state of dormancy. The law in question continues to be eclipsed by the more prominent fundamental rights and remains in a state of inactivity, yet it does not cease to exist.
- Example – Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955): The Supreme Court clarified that laws inconsistent with Article 19(1)(g) would revive if the article were amended to permit the law's restriction.
Doctrine of Severability
When only a specific provision of a post-constitutional law infringes fundamental rights, this doctrine allows courts to sever the invalid portion. The remainder of the law remains operational if it's separate from and independent of the unconstitutional provision. The legal principle of severability entails that in the event of a provision being inconsistent with others, it may be isolated from those that are consistent. Consequently, only the inconsistent portion is deemed void rather than the entire Act.
- Example – State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952): The Supreme Court struck down a specific section of a statute, allowing the rest of the law to operate.
Conclusion
Article 13 serves as a powerful tool for upholding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Through the doctrines of judicial review, eclipse, and severability, courts ensure that the primacy of fundamental rights remains a cornerstone of the Indian legal system.
Disclaimer: This article offers a general discussion and should not be interpreted as legal advice. Readers are advised to consult with legal professionals for specific guidance on any legal matter.
