This article is a compilation of Article 13 as it is. You can understand it well, that’s why its explanation is also given below, you must read it. Its explanation is also available in Hindi, for this you can use the link given below;
Appeal - Allow our notification service by clicking on the Bell icon so that you can easily get the notification of each new article. Also join our social media handles and be a part of the latest discussions;
📜 Article 13
|13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. — (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.|
(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.
(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or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.
1[(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.]
📜 Amendments !
1. Inserted by the Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971, s. 2 (5-11-1971), w.e.f.
Under Part 3 of the Indian Constitution, Fundamental Rights have been discussed from Articles 12 to 35. And we will understand Article 13 in this article.
We see that every day the Supreme Court nullifies any law or law or nullifies or cancels some part of it. So this is where the question comes that what kind of law does the Supreme Court nullify or cancel, why does it cancel. And above all, what is this “method” after all?
Article 13 answers all these questions. So let’s understand it in detail;
| Article 13 – Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights
This article is very important since the formation of the constitution, in all the controversies that have taken place regarding fundamental rights, directly or indirectly, article 13 has been there.
You will understand this thing when you will know about cases like Golaknath case, Kesavanand Bharti etc. Well, we will discuss it further, now let’s know what Article 13 says?
The first provision of Article 13 says – All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall be void to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part.
It means to say that all the laws that were in operation before our constitution came into force, after the implementation of the constitution, that part of it will be canceled which violates the fundamental rights mentioned in Part 3 of the constitution.
The second provision of Article 13 says – The state cannot make any law that takes away or abridges the fundamental rights mentioned in this part of the constitution. But if the state does so, then those laws will be void to the extent that they are violating the fundamental rights.
If the Supreme Court or the High Court feels that the fundamental rights are being violated by any law, then the Supreme Court or the High Court can also declare that law unconstitutional.
Many questions arise in this regard, so let’s understand its answer first, then we will talk about the method further;
Q1 – Will the Supreme Court nullify the entire law if it is inconsistent with the fundamental rights?
Usually the court follows the principle of separation. That is, the Supreme Court observes that if any such provision of a law is inconsistent with the fundamental rights, which can be separated from that law/act, then only that provision will be declared void, not the entire law.
If the law is made in such a way that it is impossible to sever such inconsistent provision from it, then the court contemplates voiding the entire law.
Q2. What are the rights and duties of the Supreme Court in case of violation of fundamental rights?
The Supreme Court respects the Acts made by the Legislature and generally follows the assumption that if the Legislature has made it then it must have made it right. But once the Supreme Court finds that the fundamental rights of a petitioner have been violated by the state laws, then it is the duty of the Supreme Court to intervene in that matter, and enforce the fundamental rights. .
Q3. When does the Supreme Court consider the constitutionality of a law?
The Supreme Court usually looks at two things before considering the constitutionality of a law. The first is whether the law has been made following the normal law making process and the second is whether the law or any part of it violates the fundamental rights.
Remember – the court presumes that the law is constitutional and the burden of proving that the law violates fundamental rights is on the person who has appealed.
Also remember that if a law is being misused, the court does not consider its constitutionality.
Q4. Who can question the constitutionality of a law and who cannot?
On which that method has a direct effect. He will have to tell before the court what loss has been caused to him by that law. If a person does not come under the category of fundamental rights, then he cannot challenge the validity of any law.
Q5. Can Parliament or Legislature pass the same law again after it has been declared unconstitutional or void by the Supreme Court?
No, however the Legislature or Parliament can again make a new law which is free from unconstitutional elements.
Q6. What happens after a law is declared unconstitutional?
All courts within the territory of India are bound to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. After this, what happens is that whoever brings a petition related to the violation of fundamental rights in the court after that, the court works on the basis of these earlier decisions.
So far we have understood the first and second provisions of article 13. Now we will understand the third provision of Article 13 which gives the answer as to what is law or whom should we consider as law. The answer is given under point (3) of this article –
| What is Law?
According to Article 13 (3) the following things will be considered as law;
1. A law or a statutory order or a statutory scheme passed by the Parliament or a State Legislature is a law.
But remember here that such administrative authority which does not have any legal basis is not a law.
2. Ordinance issued by the Governor and the President is the law.
3. Delegated statement such as – (order order), bye law, rule (rule), regulation (regulations) or notification (notification). These are all methods.
Remember here that no such order can be given under delegated legislation which violates the fundamental rights.
4. Non-legislative sources of law are also considered as law, such as – Custom or practice having the force of a law.
Remember – Constitutional amendment is a law or not, it has not been discussed in Article 13(3), that is why it was believed for a long time that since constitutional amendment is not a law, it was not even challenged in the court. May go.
But in the Kesavananda Bharti case of 1973, the Supreme Court said that a constitutional amendment can also be challenged on the ground of violation of a fundamental right and can be declared invalid by the Supreme Court if it is found to be inconsistent with the fundamental rights. Overall, the Constitution Amendment Act is also a law.
Now let’s talk about the fourth provision of Article 13 which was made a part of it by the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act.
Article 13(4) – Says that nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.
Actually it happened that the country has gone through the process of many reforms since the constitution came into force. Land reform was also one of these. At the center of this is the Golaknath Case 1967, which is a matter of land acquisition.
In fact, when the lands of Henry Golaknath and William Golaknath were snatched after land reform in Punjab, they reached the Supreme Court.
Actually what happened was that the lands of these two brothers were snatched under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. And then this Act was put in the Ninth Schedule through the 17th Constitutional Amendment Act 1964 so that it could not be challenged in the court.
So Golaknath argued that this is a violation of our fundamental rights because having property is a fundamental right. And according to Article 13, if the fundamental right is curtailed, then that law should become void to that extent.
The Supreme Court liked Golaknath’s arguments and gave a shocking verdict –
The Supreme Court said that under no circumstances can the Parliament use Article 368 to tinker with the fundamental rights. Because amending the constitution is also a method.
And if any law reduces or abridges the fundamental right, then it has to be repealed under Article 13.
For some reason, the Indira Gandhi government did not like these things of the Supreme Court, and with the help of the 24th Constitutional Amendment in 1971, a fourth provision was added to Article 13, which says that nothing in this article will affect the provisions of this Constitution made under Article 368.
And the same thing was also written in Article 368. Overall, this is it. If you want to understand this topic in more detail, then you must read the given article – Conflict Between Fundamental Rights and DPSP
So overall this is Article 13, I hope you have understood. To understand other paragraphs, you can use the link given below.
| Related Article
⚫ Basics of Parliament
⚫ Fundamental Rights
⚫ Judiciary in India
⚫ Executive in India
⚫ Basics of Parliament
⚫ Fundamental Rights
⚫ Judiciary in India
⚫ Executive in India
Disclaimer - The articles and their interpretations presented here are based on the original Constitution (latest edition), DD Basu's commentary on the Constitution (mainly) and various scholars of the Constitution (whose writings are available in newspapers, magazines and audio-visuals on the Internet). We have just tried to make it interesting and easy to understand.