Article 13 of the Indian Constitution pertains to all laws that contradict or undermine fundamental rights. According to Article 13, all laws that were in effect in India prior to the adoption of this Constitution, to the extent they conflict with the provisions of Part-III of the Indian Constitution, shall be deemed null and void. It also specifies that no law shall be enacted by the state that infringes upon or limits the rights granted by this part, and any law created in violation of this provision shall be considered void to the extent of the violation.
Therefore, Article 13 establishes the foundation of the judicial review doctrine, enabling both the judiciary and the public to monitor potential abuses of authority by the legislative and executive branches. This power is conferred upon the Supreme Court (as stated in Article 32) and the High Courts (as described in Article 226), giving them the authority to rule that a law violates any of the Fundamental Rights and is therefore unconstitutional.
What Constitutes law under Article 13?
- Permanent laws established by Parliament or state legislatures.
- Ordinances issued by state governors or the president are examples of temporary laws.
- Statutory instruments that are part of delegated legislation, such as notifications, rules, regulations, executive orders, and bye-laws
- Customs and usages that possess legal authority are examples of non-legislative sources of law.
- Constitutional amendments: While Article 13’s definition of law doesn’t explicitly include constitutional amendments, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. the State of Kerala (1973) that such amendments can be challenged if they infringe upon fundamental rights that are part of the constitution’s basic structure.
- Provisions beyond Article 13: It is important to note that while Article 13 addresses statutory laws, it does not encompass laws declared by the courts or orders issued by the Supreme Court under Article 142.
Judicial Review
It refers to the power of the Supreme court or High court to review and determine the validity of legislative and executive actions of the government.
The Indian Judiciary has the powers to examine the actions of the legislature, executive and administrative arms of the government. It needs to ensure that the actions of these bodies adhere to the provisions of the constitution. In India, the rule of law is upheld, and the constitution is regarded as the highest law in the country. Any law which violates the ‘basic structure’ of the constitution can be declared ultra vires by the court.
Judicial Doctrines Applying Article 13
| Doctrine | Summary | Application |
| Doctrine of Pith and substance | Incidental effects or encroachments in the state list or union list are permissible at times, keeping true nature & substance of the legislation in mind. | State of Bombay Vs. F.N. Balsara case: Bombay Prohibition Act was held valid by the court because its ‘’pith and substance’’ fell under the State List although it was impacting the import of liquor, a subject in the union list. |
| Doctrine of Colourable Legislation |
Whatever cannot be accomplished directly cannot be achieved through indirect means either.. Applies in cases where the legislature seeks to do in an indirect manner which it cannot do directly. | State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh Case: The Court applied the concept of the Doctrine of Colourable Legislation to declare Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 as illegal. Though the law was brought to lay down the principle of compensation, it laid down no such principle and therefore deprived the petitioner of any compensation. |
| Doctrine of Delegated Legislation |
The primary legislation grants executive authority the power to create laws or similar instruments. | D.S. Grewal v State of Punjab, 1959: Court had applied this doctrine to declare that All India Service Act, 1951 was constitutional. It was held that there is nothing mentioned in Article 312 of the Indian Constitution that takes away the power of delegation. |
| Doctrine of Necessity | Often employed to rationalize the breach of rights or the implementation of measures beyond the constitution by the state during critical circumstances aimed at re-establishing peace and stability. | Gullapalli Nageshwar Rao vs State of Andhra Pradesh, 1959: The court ruled that the doctrine of necessity should be invoked but only in exceptional cases. |
| Doctrine of Pleasure | With the exception of the rules set forth in the Constitution, civil servants serve at the discretion of the President or the Governor, depending on the situation. | Union of India v. Balbir Singh, 2017: The Supreme Court held that it had the power to examine the satisfaction on the basis of which the President or the Governor dismissed a public servant. If the satisfaction does not pertain to the security of the State, it would be deemed insignificant, allowing the Court to deem such a dismissal invalid. |
| Doctrine of Eclipse | Pre-constitutional law which violates fundamental rights, will not be declared null or void ab initio but it only becomes unenforceable. | Bhikaji vs State of MP case 1955: The doctrine of the eclipse was applied in this case. Provisions of the CP and Berar motor vehicle amendment act 1947, were infringing the 19(1)(g). The court held that we will not make the full act void but eclipse those provisions which are violative of article 19 (1) (g). |
| Doctrine of Severability | If any of the laws enforced are inconsistent with the provisions of fundamental rights, then the courts will treat only the objectionable provision as unlawful and not the entire law. | State of Bombay v. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala, 1957: This Principle was derived by the court in this case and has been applied in the A. K Gopalan vs state of Madras case where Preventive detention act, 1950 was held legal, with the exception of Section 14 which provided that the grounds of detention communicated to the detainee cannot be disclosed in the court of law. In the Minerva Mills vs Union of India (1980), Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 was struck down for being outside of Parliament’s amending competence, while the rest of the Act was found lawful. |
| Doctrine of Territorial Nexus |
Any legislative body is capable of enacting laws on matters beyond its geographic authority, provided that it establishes a territorial connection. | Tata Iron And Steel Company vs. Bihar State, 1958: The state of Bihar passed a Sales Tax Act for the levy of sales tax. But after that, an issue arose whether the Bihar sales act, 1947 in so far as it imposed tax on sale of goods outside Bihar became void as being inconsistent with Article 286 (Restrictions as to imposition of tax on the sale or purchase of goods) of the constitution. But the court held there was sufficient territorial nexus and upheld the Act as valid. |
| Doctrine of Implied Powers |
Certain powers that are not given directly by the Constitution to a certain authority like parliament or the Supreme Court. These authorities are considered essential for the effective fulfillment of the duties outlined in the Constitution. | Bidi Leaves and Tobacco Merchant’s Association v. The State of Bombay, 1961: In this case the Supreme Court talked about the applicability of the Doctrine of Implied Powers. According to the court this doctrine of implied power can only be invoked where the material provision of the Act would be impossible to enforce without the implied power. |
| Doctrine of Incidental or Ancillary powers |
It indicates that if a legislative body has the power to legislate on a particular matter, they have the power to legislate on ancillary or connected topics, reasonably related to that matter. | State of Rajasthan v. G Chawla (1958) : In this instance, the Supreme Court determined that, “The authority to create laws on a legislative subject also encompasses the authority to address a related issue that can be considered reasonably within the granted powers.” |
| Doctrine of Precedent | The hierarchy or priority set forth by Article 141 of the Indian Constitution specifies that any laws or rulings pronounced by the Supreme Court are obligatory for all courts throughout India. | Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum Case, 1985: It was held that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of religious texts is a binding precedent. |
| Doctrine of Harmonious Construction |
In case of any inconsistency between statutes, proper harmonisation is to be done between the conflicting parts so that one part does not defeat the purpose of another. | Sri Shankari Prasad Singh Deo Vs Union of India, 1951: Court used the Harmonious Construction Rule to bring harmonisation between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy. It was determined that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy are two sides of the same coin that must be worked together for the greater good. In the case it was held that the Fundamental rights may be revoked under certain circumstances and modified by Parliament to bring them into compliance with constitutional provisions. |
|
||||||||||
