Ensuring that laws that violate citizens’ fundamental rights are invalidated is one of the main functions of Article 13 of Indian Constitution. This article is essential to upholding the Constitution’s primacy and safeguarding individual liberties. This is a thorough examination of Article 13, its importance, and its effects.
Article 13 of Indian Constitution Laws
- 13(1): Any laws that were in effect in India before the adoption of this Constitution and that conflict with any of its provisions will be declared invalid to the extent of the conflict.
- 13(2): The State is prohibited from passing legislation that restricts or eliminates the rights granted by this section, and any legislation that does so will be invalid to the extent that it violates this clause.
- 13(3): Law in this article refers to any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom, or usages that have legal force in India’s territory unless the context otherwise requires; laws in force include laws passed or made by the Legislature or other competent authority in India’s territory before the start of this Constitution and not previously repealed, even though any such law or any part of it may not have been in operation at all at that time or in specific areas.
- 13(4): This article does not apply to any changes made to the Constitution under Article 368, Right of Equality.
Characteristics of Fundamental Rights
The majority of the basic liberties protected by the Indian Constitution are social and political.
The fundamental rights are susceptible to reasonable limitations and are not unqualified rights. Restrictions on fundamental rights may be necessary to protect national sovereignty and integrity, public health, public order, social harmony, etc.
It is legal to litigate over fundamental rights. An individual can file a complaint with the courts to have his fundamental rights upheld if he believes that any government agency or organ has violated those rights. The authority to grant writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights is vested in the Supreme Court under Article 32 and in the High Courts under Article 226.
The Parliament has the authority to alter, suspend, or restrict fundamental rights. Except for Articles 20 and 21, all fundamental rights are suspended when the president declares a state of emergency. A special two-thirds majority is required for the Parliament to amend the fundamental rights to carry out its authority under Article 368 of the Constitution.
Applicability of Article 13 to Constitutional Amendments
Whether or not constitutional amendments fall under the definition of “law” as used in Article 13 has been one of the most contentious questions surrounding the article.
In the 1951 case of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, the Supreme Court rendered the first decision on this matter. In this instance, the Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951 was contested because it violated fundamental rights and was, therefore, unconstitutional under Article 13. However, the Apex Court ruled that Article 13 cannot be used to review the constitutional changes that the Parliament made by Article 368 of the Constitution.
Nevertheless, in the 1967 case of I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, the Court adopted a different stance. In this instance, the court decided that constitutional amendments are subject to Article 13 and may be deemed invalid if they are found to violate the fundamental rights protected by Part III of the document. The Golak Nath ruling was later overturned in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case, where the Supreme Court maintained the legality of the 24th Amendment Act and ruled that while the Parliament may amend any fundamental right, the fundamental framework of the Constitution cannot be changed.
Retrospective Effect of Article 13
The question that the seven-judge Apex Court bench had to decide in the seminal case of Keshavan Madhava Menon v. the State of Bombay (1951) was whether laws that violated Article 13’s fundamental rights would be declared invalid from the start or invalid with retroactive effect. The Supreme Court agreed with the latter theory, ruling that the laws would be null and void going forward. Before the law was ruled invalid, people who broke a law violating their fundamental rights would not be protected.
The Court did point out that the proceedings under the void law cannot continue in cases where an individual committed an offense under a law that was in effect at the time of the offense but was later determined to violate a fundamental right and the prosecution has not yet been completed. Therefore, the person cannot be prosecuted under the relevant law if, at any point when the Court is asked to decide whether or not the person committed an offense under the relevant law, it is discovered that the law has been declared void under Article 13.
Background of Judicial Review
The United States Supreme Court initially introduced the concept of judicial review. Initially, the United States Constitution did not specifically include judicial review. The legal concept of judicial review—the court’s authority to restrict legislative power by deeming legislation unconstitutional—was first upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1803 case of William Marbury versus James Madison.
Congress’s actions that are against the Constitution or that are not legally binding are not bound by the quotations, and the judiciary’s constant duty is to protect the Constitution.
Conclusion
The Indian Constitution’s Article 13 of Indian Constitution is essential for protecting fundamental rights because it declares laws that violate these rights unconstitutional. It emphasises judicial review and forbids the State from passing laws that curtail these rights. Although it did not address constitutional amendments at first, subsequent decisions upheld the need for amendments to uphold fundamental rights to maintain the integrity of the document.
