ARTICLE 13

ANANYA V P
ARTICLE 13- LAW INCONSISTENT WITH OR IN
DEROGATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
• Article 13 expressly lays down the supremacy of the Fundamental Rights over any other law if there is
any inconsistency between the two. It prevents the legislature from making any law in contravention of
Part III of the Constitution i.e, the Fundamental Rights.

• Article 13 also gives power to declare any pre-constitutional law which is inconsistent with the
Fundamental Rights as void to the extent of its inconsistency. It thus helps review the pre constitutional
law as well as the existing laws, thereby paving the way for judicial review.
ARTICLE 13(1)
It deals with Pre- Constitutional laws. Many different laws were present before the constitution came into being
force, and remained in effect after that. So, this article provides that those laws (existing before the constitution)
which are inconsistent with Fundamental Rights become void and others will remain valid.
Article13(1) is prospective in nature but not retrospective i.e the article will be in effect from the day when
constitution came in effect and the person who committed offence afterwards will be prosecuted according to the
laws of Indian constitution but not according to the pre-constitutional laws.
CASE LAW-
KeshavMadhavmenon v. state of Bombay(1951)

DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY
Case Law- A.K Gopalan v. State if Madras(1950)
DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE
Case Law- Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhyapradesh(1955)
ARTICLE 13(2)
It deals with Post-Constitutional laws. According to this article after the enforcement, the State is prohibited to
make such laws that are inconsistent with Fundamental Rights. They will become void.

CASE LAW
State of Gujarat v. State of Madhyapradesh

ARTICLE 13(3)
It talks about the meaning of laws whether by laws, notification, rules, regulations, customs, usage etc if do effect
the legal rights of the citizen do come under the definition of law, thus would be considered as laws under Article
13 but there are 2 exceptions to the same,
1. The administrative and the executive orders are being covered under Article 13 but if their nature is just to
give instructions or guidelines then they would not be covered under Article 13.
2. Personal laws are not being covered under Article 13.
ARTICLE 13(4)
Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368. Moreover if the
amendment so made would be against the fundamental rights then also it would not be challenged under Article 13.
Article 13(4) gave birth to landmark doctrine to our constitution moreover it prohibits the parliament to make laws
or amendments which are inconsistent to the fundamental rights.
It is the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Basic structure means the idea is to preserve the nature of Indian democracy and protect the rights and liberties of
people. It is a conflict between Article 13 and Article 368. Article 13 serves as the protector of Fundamental Rights
whereas article 368 holds the power to amend the constitution.
CASE LAW
Shankariprasad v, Union of India(1951)
Golaknath v. State of Punjab(1967)
24 TH AMENDMENT, 1971
Through this amendment act, they inserted article 13(4), which means no judicial review over the amendments
takes place which will amend under Article 368. So, now the parliament can dilute the constitution including the
fundamental rights.
Case law- Kesavandabharti v. State of Kerala(1973)
42 ND AMENDMENT, 1976
Also called Mini constitution or the constitution of Indira, it gave the power to the parliament to amend any law in
the constitution including the basic structure of the constitution, but this was again over-rulled in Minerva mills
case.
Minerva mills v. Union of India(1980)
THANK YOU