1. What is the Keshavan Madhava Menon vs. State of Bombay Case all about?
The Keshavan Madhava Menon vs. State of Bombay case in 1951 addressed the issue of the retrospective application of constitutional provisions, specifically fundamental rights, to pre-constitutional laws. The case examined whether a pre-constitutional law that was inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution became void upon the commencement of the Constitution.
2. Facts of the Keshavan Madhava Menon vs. State of Bombay Case Relevant for UPSC
- Parties Involved:
- Keshavan Madhava Menon (petitioner)
- State of Bombay (respondent)
- Legal Questions:
- Whether a pre-constitutional law that is inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution becomes void after the Constitution comes into effect.
- Whether the retrospective application of constitutional provisions can render a pre-constitutional law invalid.
- Noteworthy Events:
- Keshavan Madhava Menon was prosecuted under the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, a pre-constitutional law, for publishing certain articles.
- Menon challenged the validity of his prosecution, arguing that the law under which he was being prosecuted was inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and hence void.
3. What are the Major Judgements/Changes Brought by Keshavan Madhava Menon vs. State of Bombay Case?
The Supreme Court delivered a significant judgement clarifying the application of constitutional provisions to pre-constitutional laws:
- The Court held that Article 13(1) of the Constitution, which states that any law inconsistent with the fundamental rights shall be void, applies prospectively and not retrospectively. This means that pre-constitutional laws do not become void ab initio but cease to have effect from the date of commencement of the Constitution if they are inconsistent with fundamental rights.
- The judgement clarified that the Constitution does not have a retrospective effect, and therefore, a pre-constitutional law remains valid for actions taken under it before the Constitution came into effect.
- The Court emphasized that the prosecution of Keshavan Madhava Menon under the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, was valid as the act was not rendered void retrospectively by the commencement of the Constitution.
4. What was the Impact of Keshavan Madhava Menon vs. State of Bombay Case on Indian Constitution?
- Prospective Application of Constitutional Provisions: The judgement established the principle that constitutional provisions, particularly those related to fundamental rights, apply prospectively and do not invalidate pre-constitutional laws retrospectively.
- Clarity on Article 13: It provided clarity on the interpretation of Article 13, ensuring that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights cease to have effect only from the commencement of the Constitution.
- Legal Continuity: The ruling ensured legal continuity by affirming that pre-constitutional laws remain valid for actions taken before the Constitution came into effect, preventing legal chaos and uncertainty.
5. Was this Keshavan Madhava Menon vs. State of Bombay Case Challenged/Reversed in Future?
The principles established in the Keshavan Madhava Menon case have been upheld in subsequent legal proceedings and continue to guide the interpretation of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution. The judgement remains a key reference for understanding the application of constitutional provisions to pre-constitutional laws.
6. Doctrines/Theories/New Concepts
- Doctrine of Prospective Application of Constitutional Provisions: The case introduced the principle that constitutional provisions, especially those related to fundamental rights, apply prospectively from the date of commencement of the Constitution. This doctrine ensures that pre-constitutional laws are not invalidated retrospectively, maintaining legal continuity and stability.