Article 13 – Indian Constitution
Article 13 of Constitution of India
1. Clause 1 of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution provides that 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 (Part III), relating to the fundamental rights shall to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
2. Clause 2 of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution provides that the state shall not make any law which takes away or abridge the rights conferred by this Part relating to the fundamental rights, and any law made in contravention of this clause, shall to the extent of contravention, be void.
3. Clause 3 of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution says that in this Article, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) law includes any ordinance, other bye-law rule regulation. notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law.
(b) “Law in force” includes laws passed or made by a Legislature of other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation cither at all or in particular areas.
4. Clause 4 of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution says that nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of the Constitution made under Art 368 inserted by the Constitution (24″ Amendment Act, 1971)
According to Clause (1) of Art. 13 all pre-constitution or exiting laws, i.e. laws which were in force immediately before the commencement of the constitution shall he void to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the fundamental Rights from the date of the commencement of the constitution.
Case : Keshava Madhav Menon V. State of Bombay A.I.R. 1951
Clause 2 of Art 13 prohibit State to make any law which takes away or abridge rights conferred by Part l of the Constitution of States make such a law then it will be ultra vires and void to the extent of the infringement. It is still-born law and cannot be revived by removal of the constitutional prohibition by subsequence amendment of the Constitution. Though post-Constitution laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void from their very inception yet a declaration by the Court of their invalidity will be necessary.
As distinguished from Clause 1 and Clause 2 makes the inconsistent laws void ab initio and even conviction made under such unconstitutional laws shall have to be set aside “Anything done under such a law whether closed completed or inchoate will be wholly illegal and person adversely affected by it will be entitled to relief.