Article 13 of COI— The Constitutional Bouncer

Article 13 of COI— The Constitutional Bouncer

With doctrines like judicial review, severability, and eclipse, it safeguards the Constitution’s core values while leaving room for judicial creativity.

Introduction: The “Article 13” Showdown

Ever wondered what makes Article 13 the guardian of our Fundamental Rights? It’s like the ultimate “delete” button for unconstitutional laws! But beneath its simplicity lies a web of doctrines and judicial interpretations that make it a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law. Grab your popcorn as we unravel the intricacies of doctrines stemming from Article 13 — with humor, professionalism, and a dash of legal geekery.

Judicial Review: The Watchdog Doctrine

Provision Highlight: Article 13 empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts to review and declare any law inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution as void. This doctrine — judicial review — has roots in both the Indian Constitution and comparative constitutional law.

Origin of Judicial Review

The doctrine of judicial review was famously articulated by Chief Justice Marshall in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Marbury v. Madison (1803):

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

The idea was that any legislation repugnant to the Constitution must be struck down.

Adoption in India

Unlike the U.S., India explicitly provides for judicial review:

• State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952): Chief Justice Patanjali Sastri remarked that judicial review is a duty “plainly laid upon” the courts by the Constitution.
• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): Reinforced the principle of constitutional supremacy, empowering courts to invalidate laws violating Part III.

Judicial Review as Basic Structure

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Justice Khanna identified judicial review as an integral part of the Constitution.
• L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997): Explicitly declared judicial review as part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Practical Application

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as violative of Article 19(1)(a).
• John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003): Invalidated Section 118 of the Succession Act, 1925, for discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 25.

Prospective Nature of Article 13

Provision Highlight: Article 13(1) declares pre-constitutional laws void only to the extent of inconsistency with Part III. But this voidance operates prospectively, not retrospectively.

Key Clarifications

No Retroactive Effect: Pre-constitutional laws conflicting with Part III become void only from 26 January 1950.

• Example: An arrest made under a pre-1950 unconstitutional law before this date cannot be invalidated.

Pending Prosecutions: Legal proceedings under pre-constitutional laws continue unaffected if initiated before 26 January 1950.

• Illustration: A prosecution under a colonial-era law remains valid if it began pre-Constitution.

Doctrines Evolving from Article 13

1. Doctrine of Eclipse

When a pre-constitutional law violates Fundamental Rights, it becomes “eclipsed” but not nullified. Such laws remain dormant and can be revived if the inconsistency is removed.

2. Doctrine of Severability

If only part of a law violates Fundamental Rights, the unconstitutional portion is severed, leaving the rest intact.

3. Doctrine of Waiver

Individuals cannot waive Fundamental Rights, as they are sacrosanct and intended for public good.

These will be discussed seperately just like the Judicial Review Doctrine.

Conclusion: Article 13 — The Constitutional Bouncer

Article 13 ensures that Fundamental Rights reign supreme, acting as a shield against legislative or executive encroachments. With doctrines like judicial review, severability, and eclipse, it safeguards the Constitution’s core values while leaving room for judicial creativity. Whether you’re a law student or a curious citizen, understanding these doctrines is like unlocking the Constitution’s backstage pass. So next time someone challenges a law’s validity, you’ll know why Article 13 is the unsung hero of our democratic saga.