Article 13 of the Indian Constitution — “Law: To Void or Not to Void?”

Article 13 cements the supremacy of Fundamental Rights by invalidating inconsistent laws. However, its interpretation has evolved through…

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution — “Law: To Void or Not to Void?”

Article 13 cements the supremacy of Fundamental Rights by invalidating inconsistent laws. However, its interpretation has evolved through judicial ingenuity and legislative interventions.

Photo by Miko Guziuk on Unsplash

Let’s unravel the legal web of Article 13, where pre-existing laws tremble at the might of Fundamental Rights. It’s a tale of definitions, judicial debates, and the constitutional tug-of-war between legislative power and constitutional supremacy. Buckle up — this is not your average civics class!

Introduction

Article 13 acts as the constitutional guardian of Fundamental Rights in India. It invalidates laws that violate these rights, safeguarding the supremacy of Part III of the Constitution. However, the real drama begins when we dive into its intricacies: What qualifies as “law”? Can constitutional amendments be scrutinized under Article 13? The answers are steeped in judicial pronouncements and legislative responses.

Provisions of Article 13: Dissected Clause by Clause

Clause (1): Pre-Constitutional Laws

“All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part III, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.”

Key Points:

  • Targets pre-Constitutional laws that clash with Fundamental Rights.
  • Such laws are rendered void to the extent of inconsistency.
  • Example: Colonial-era laws contradicting rights like freedom of speech (Article 19) would be invalidated.

Clause (2): Post-Constitutional Laws

“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.”

Key Points:

  • Applies to laws made post-1950.
  • Establishes that no law can dilute Fundamental Rights.
  • The clause empowers courts to strike down any such law.

Clause (3): Definition of “Law”

Sub-clause (a): “Law” includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom, or usage having the force of law.

Scope:

  • Expands the term “law” to cover a wide array of legislative and administrative instruments.
  • Even customs and usages are included if they hold legal force.

Sub-clause (b): “Laws in force” include laws passed or made by a legislature or competent authority before the commencement of the Constitution and not repealed.

Explanation:

  • Covers pre-existing laws that were not repealed before 1950.
  • Such laws must align with Fundamental Rights or face invalidation.

Clause (4): Shield for Constitutional Amendments

This clause was inserted via the 24th Amendment to exclude constitutional amendments from the purview of Article 13.

Purpose:

  • To address the conflict arising from the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab.

Judicial Pronouncements: The Tug-of-War

1. Constitutional Amendments as “Law”: The Golak Nath Verdict

Case: Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967).

Observation:

  • The Supreme Court held that constitutional amendments are subject to Article 13.
  • This interpretation threatened Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution.

2. The 24th Amendment and Kesavananda Bharati Case

Legislative Response:

  • The 24th Amendment inserted Clause (4), explicitly stating that constitutional amendments under Article 368 are not “law” under Article 13.

Judicial Check:

  • In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court upheld the 24th Amendment but introduced the Basic Structure Doctrine.
  • This doctrine ensures that no amendment can violate the Constitution’s fundamental framework.

3. Ninth Schedule and the Coelho Case

Case: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007).

Observation:

  • Laws placed under the Ninth Schedule are not immune from judicial review if they violate the Basic Structure.
  • This weakened the protective shield of Article 13(4).

Relief Under Article 13

Nature of Remedies

The Supreme Court has clarified the type of relief available when Fundamental Rights are violated due to unconstitutional laws.

Case: S. Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P. (2020).

Ruling:

  • In cases of rights violations, restitution (e.g., admission to a medical college) is preferred over compensation.

Critical Analysis

Broad Definition of “Law”:

  • Article 13(3)(a) ensures that all possible legislative and quasi-legislative actions are scrutinized for conformity with Fundamental Rights.

Limitations of Clause (4):

  • The protection offered to constitutional amendments is limited by the Basic Structure Doctrine.

Judicial Review and Flexibility:

  • The judiciary’s ability to review even Ninth Schedule laws ensures that legislative powers are not absolute.

Practical Implications:

  • The clause (2) prohibition on abridging Fundamental Rights ensures a rights-centric legislative approach.

Conclusion

Article 13 cements the supremacy of Fundamental Rights by invalidating inconsistent laws. However, its interpretation has evolved through judicial ingenuity and legislative interventions. With doctrines like Basic Structure safeguarding constitutional integrity, Article 13 remains a cornerstone of India’s constitutional framework — a constant reminder that the rights of the people reign supreme over the might of the legislature.