SAFEGUARDING RIGHTS: ARTICLE 13 & KEY DOCTRINES IN INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Safeguarding Rights: Article 13 and Key Doctrines in Indian Constitutional Law

ARTICLE 13 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION

Article 13 is a fundamental part of the Indian Constitution that deals with laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. It provides the judicial machinery for the enforcement of fundamental rights against any laws that infringe upon these rights.

Meaning and Definition

Article 13 is divided into four clauses:

Article 13(1): Any pre-constitutional law in force in India, in so far as it is inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution (Fundamental Rights), shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency.

Article 13(2): The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III, and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.

Article 13(3): Defines the terms “law” and “laws in force” as follows:

• “Law” includes any Ordinance, order, by-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom, or usage having the force of law.
• “Laws in force” include laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of the Constitution and not previously repealed.

Article 13(4): Added by the 24th Amendment Act, 1971, which states that nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368.

Examples and Application

• If a pre-constitutional law permits discrimination based on religion, it would be void under Article 13(1) to the extent of its inconsistency with the fundamental rights of equality and non-discrimination.

• If a post-constitutional law is passed that restricts the freedom of speech without reasonable restrictions, it would be void under Article 13(2).

Theoretical Framework

Article 13 establishes the supremacy of the Constitution, particularly the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III. It empowers the judiciary to:

• Review and invalidate any law that is inconsistent with fundamental rights.
• Ensure that the legislative and executive branches do not infringe upon these rights.

The article serves as a check on the power of the legislature and executive, safeguarding individual liberties and maintaining the balance of power between different branches of government

CASE LAWS

Several landmark judgments have interpreted and applied Provisions 13, reinforcing its significance:

A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): This case involved preventive detention and the Supreme Court upheld the law, interpreting Article 21 narrowly. However, it set the precedent for judicial review of laws against fundamental rights.

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): The Supreme Court held that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the basic structure. This ruling protected fundamental rights from being abrogated through constitutional amendments.

Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): The Court reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine and held that a limited amending power does not enable Parliament to override fundamental rights.

I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007): The Supreme Court ruled that laws placed under the Ninth Schedule (which were meant to be immune from judicial review) after the Kesavananda Bharati judgment could still be reviewed if they violated the basic structure, including fundamental rights.

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court decriminalized Section 377 of the IPC, to the extent it criminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults, citing violation of fundamental rights

KEY DOCTRINE’S

1. Principle of Severability

Definition: The doctrine of severability (also known as the doctrine of separability) states that if a part of a statute is found to be unconstitutional, only that part is invalidated, while the remaining provisions, which are not affected by the unconstitutionality, continue to remain in force.

Key Points:

• Only the offending provision is struck down.
• The valid portions are severed and remain operative.
• Ensures that laws are not entirely invalidated due to a specific unconstitutional section.

Case Law: R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957)

• In this case, the Supreme Court held that the unconstitutional parts of an act can be severed if they are separable from the valid parts. The Court invalidated certain provisions of the Prize Competitions Act, 1955, while upholding the rest of the Act.

2. Principle of Waiver

Definition: The doctrine of waiver refers to the voluntary relinquishment or abandonment of a known right. In the context of fundamental rights, it means that an individual cannot voluntarily give up their fundamental rights, as they are guaranteed by the Constitution and are meant to protect the individual’s dignity and liberty.

Key Points:

• Fundamental rights cannot be waived.
• They are guaranteed by the Constitution and are inalienable.
• Ensures protection of individual rights against the state.

Case Law: Basheshar Nath v. CIT (1959)

• In this case, the Supreme Court held that an individual cannot waive their fundamental rights. The authorities forced the petitioner to pay additional tax under a settlement agreement, but the Court ruled that fundamental rights cannot be waived, rendering the agreement invalid.

3. Principle of Eclipse

Definition: The doctrine of eclipse states that if a law becomes unconstitutional because it violates fundamental rights, it does not become void ab initio. Instead, it becomes dormant or eclipsed and can become operative again if the fundamental rights are amended in a way that removes the conflict.

Key Points:

• The law is not nullified but rendered inoperative.
• Can revive if the constitutional impediment is removed.
• Applicable to pre-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights.

Case Law: Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955)

• The Supreme Court held that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with fundamental rights is not void ab initio but becomes eclipsed. When an amendment to the Constitution removes the prohibition, the law revives and becomes operative again.

CONCLUSION

Article 13 is a cornerstone of constitutional law in India, ensuring that all laws and state actions comply with the fundamental rights of citizens. Through judicial review, it empowers the judiciary to protect these rights, maintaining the Constitution’s supremacy and preventing abuse of legislative and executive power.

All about Article 13 of Indian Constitution