Article 13

Law meaning
The term 'law' in Art. 13 has been given a wide connotation so as to include any ordinance, order,
bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of
law [ Art. 13(3)(a)]. Accordingly, inter alia the following have been held to be 'law' under Art. 13, the
validity of which can be tested on the touchstone of Fundamental Rights:

(i) a resolution passed by a State Government under Fundamental Rule 44 of the State
(ii) a government notification under the Commissions of Inquiry Act setting up a
commission of inquiry;
(iii) a notification or an order under a statute;
(iv) an administrative order; but administrative instruction is not law within the
meaning of Article 13.
(v) a custom or usage;
(vi) bye-laws of a municipal or a statutory body;
(vii) (vii) regulations made by a statutory corporation like the Life Insurance Corporation

Principles of Law

DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE
1. Bikaji vs state of Madhya Pradhesh—doctrine of eclipse emerged out of this judgement.
2. Keshvanand Madhava Menon vs State of Maharastra

The doctrine of eclipse envisages that a pre-Constitution law inconsistent with a Fundamental Right
was not wiped out altogether from the statute book after the commencement of the Constitution as
it continued to exist in respect of rights and liabilities which had accrued before the date of the
Constitution.

3. State of Gujrat vs Shri Ambika Mills Ltd

1. In case the law contravenes a Fundamental Right limited to the citizens only, it will operate
with respect to the non-citizens.
2. This ruling supports the proposition that an Act held invalid under Art. 13(2) could not be
revived merely by amending it but will have to be re-enacted. The same proposition will
apply when an Act infringes a Fundamental Right applicable to the citizens only. Such a law
will be regarded as 'still-born' vis-à-vis the citizens even though it may be operative qua the
non-citizens, and so it will have to be re-enacted if it is desired to make it valid qua the
citizens.

DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY
1. R.M.D.C vs UOI
1. When a legislature whose authority is subject to limitations aforesaid enacts a law which is
wholly in excess of its powers, it is entirely void and must be completely ignored. But when
 the legislation falls in part within the area allotted to it and in part outside it, it is
undoubtedly void as to the latter; but does it on that become necessarily void in its entirety?
The answer to this question must depend on whether what is valid could be separated from
what is invalid, and that is a question which has to be decided by the Court on a
consideration of the provisions of the Act.
2. If the valid and invalid provisions are so inextricably mixed up that they cannot be separated
from one another, then the invalidity of a portion must result in the invalidity of the Act in its
entirety.

2.Gopalan vs state of madras

On the other hand, if they are so distinct and separate that after striking out what is invalid,
what survives can stand independently and is workable--the portion which remains is in itself a
complete code independent of the rest, then it will be upheld notwithstanding that the rest had
become unenforceable. If the nature or the object or the structure of the legislation is not
changed by the omission of the void portion, the latter is severable from the rest

Article 14: Right to equality

EQUALITY BEFORE LAW: ART. 14

The first is a negative concept which ensures that there is no special privilege in favour of any one,
that all are equally subject to the ordinary law of the land and that no person, whatever be his rank
or condition, is above the law. This is equivalent to the second corollary of the Dicean concept of the
Rule of Law in Britain.23 This, however, is not an absolute rule and there are a number of exceptions
to it, e.g., foreign diplomats enjoy immunity from the country's judicial process; Art. 361 extends
immunity to the President of India and the State Governors;24 public officers and judges also enjoy
some protection, and some special groups and interests, like the trade unions, have been accorded
special privileges by law.

The second concept, 'equal protection of laws', is positive in content. It does not mean that
identically the same law should apply to all persons, or that every law must have a universal
application within the country irrespective of differences of circumstances. Equal Protection of the
laws does not postulate equal treatment of all persons without distinction. What it postulates is the
application of the same laws alike and without discrimination to all persons similarly situated. It
denotes equality of treatment in equal circumstances. It implies that among equals the law should
be equal and equally administered, that the like should be treated alike without distinction of race,
religion, wealth, social status or political influence

A statute carries with it a presumption of Constitutionality. Such a presumption extends also in

relation to a law which has been enacted for imposing reasonable restrictions on the Fundamental
Rights. A further Page 981 presumption may also be drawn that the statutory authority would not
exercise the power arbitrarily.63 On the other hand, if discrimination is writ large on the face of the
legislation, the onus may shift to the state to sustain the validity of the legislation in question.64 In
Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University, 65 the Supreme Court has pointed out that a classification need
not be made with "mathematical precision". But, if there is little or no difference between the
persons or things which have been grouped together and those left out of the group, then
classification cannot be regarded as reasonable. The Court has also pointed out that to consider
reasonableness of classification it is necessary to take into account the objective for such
classification. "If the objective be illogical, unfair and unjust, necessarily the classification will have to
be held as unreasonable." Also, surrounding circumstances may be taken into consideration in
support of the constitutionality of a law which may otherwise be hostile or discriminatory in nature.
"But the circumstances must be such as to justify the discriminatory treatment or the classification
subserving the object sought to be achieved."

1. Chiranjeet lal chauderi vs union of india

Article 14 prescribes equality before law. But the fact remains that all persons are not equal by
nature, attainment or circumstances, and, therefore, a mechanical equality before the law may
result in injustice. Thus, the guarantee against the denial of equal protection of the law does not
mean that identically the same rules of law should be made applicable to all persons in spite of
difference in circumstances or conditions.