Actual Article
Article 13: Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights
- Article 13(1): All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
- Article 13(2): 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.
- Article 13(3): In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) “law” includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;
(b) “laws in force” includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas. - Article 13(4): Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368.
UPSC Notes for Article 13
Explanation:
- Article 13(1): Declares that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of their inconsistency.
- Article 13(2): Prohibits the State from making laws that abridge or take away Fundamental Rights, rendering such laws void.
- Article 13(3): Defines “law” and “laws in force” broadly to include various forms of legal instruments.
- Article 13(4): Excludes constitutional amendments from the purview of Article 13, indicating that amendments under Article 368 are not subject to judicial review on the grounds of violating Fundamental Rights.
Key Points:
- Protection of Fundamental Rights: Article 13 serves as a guardian of Fundamental Rights, ensuring that any law inconsistent with these rights is void.
- Judicial Review: Empowers the judiciary to review and strike down laws that contravene Fundamental Rights, maintaining the supremacy of the Constitution.
- Broad Definition of Law: Includes ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, customs, and usages, ensuring comprehensive protection against violations of Fundamental Rights.
- Exclusion of Constitutional Amendments: Clarifies that Article 13 does not apply to constitutional amendments, providing a separate mechanism for constitutional changes under Article 368.
Important Cases and Commissions Related to Article 13
Cases:
- Keshavan Madhava Menon vs. State of Bombay (1951): Established that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void from the commencement of the Constitution.
- A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950): Highlighted the judiciary’s role in interpreting laws in light of Fundamental Rights.
- I.C. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab (1967): Held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights, emphasizing the supremacy of Article 13.
- Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973): Introduced the basic structure doctrine, allowing judicial review of constitutional amendments that alter the basic structure of the Constitution, despite Article 13(4).
Commissions:
- National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002): Suggested amendments and interpretations of Article 13 to enhance the protection of Fundamental Rights.
- Law Commission Reports: Various reports have discussed the implications and applications of Article 13, recommending ways to strengthen the judicial review process.
Important Reports Related to Article 13
- Second Administrative Reforms Commission Report (2006): Analyzed the impact of Article 13 on governance and the protection of Fundamental Rights, suggesting improvements in legal frameworks.
- National Human Rights Commission Reports: Regularly examine the enforcement of Fundamental Rights, referencing the role of Article 13 in protecting these rights.
Additional Insights:
- Judicial Activism: Article 13 has empowered the judiciary to take an active role in safeguarding Fundamental Rights, often leading to landmark judgments that shape the interpretation and application of these rights.
- Constitutional Amendments: While Article 13 excludes constitutional amendments from its purview, the basic structure doctrine ensures that amendments do not undermine the core principles of the Constitution, maintaining a balance between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review.
By understanding Article 13, UPSC aspirants can appreciate its crucial role in protecting Fundamental Rights and its impact on the legislative process. This knowledge is essential for both preliminary and main examinations, providing insights into the constitutional framework and judicial safeguards in India.