Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Analysing The Ambit and Meaning of Article 13
Analysing The Ambit and Meaning of Article 13
Analysing The Ambit and Meaning of Article 13
The Indian Constitution provides for a similar contractual agreement between the
State and the citizen. Therefore, if any legislation inflicts upon a person’s
constitutional rights mentioned in Part III of the Constitution, they can approach
the judiciary under Article 226 and 32.
This piece aims to peruse Article 13 and its Clauses while also understanding how
the courts’ interpretations shaped how Article 13 is understood today. This piece
will explain Article 13, Clause by Clause, and its significance as read by the Indian
judiciary. It will also emphasise the importance of judicial review vis-a-vis Article
13.
Article 13 (1) was first interpreted by the Supreme Court in adjudicating whether
Article 13 had any retrospective effect as far as laws inconsistent with the
fundamental rights were concerned.
In Keshavan Madhava Menon v The State Of Bombay (1951), a seven-judge
Bench heard the appeal of a petitioner prosecuted under the Indian Press
(Emergency Powers) Act. Part of the appeal posed if Article 13 (1) of the Indian
Constitution could ‘declare all laws inconsistent with the fundamental rights to be
void as if they had never been passed and existed’ or void ab initio.
The Court ordered that Article 13(1) does not make existing laws inconsistent with
the fundamental rights, or void ab initio, for all purposes. But Article 13 makes
such laws’ ineffectual and void’ prospectively based on its exercise of
fundamental rights on and after the commencement of the Constitution.
Justice Das, on behalf of the bench (barring the dissent Justice Fazl Ali), observed,
Among other things, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court also had
to answer if ‘Ambika Mill’, a non-citizen, could claim the law to be void
or non-est based on Article 13(2).
On behalf of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, Justice Mathew
observed that with the advent of the Constitution of India, special rights were given
only to citizens, which render them protection against a post unconstitutional law.
But these provisions, although unconstitutional for the citizen, were not non-
est for non-citizens like the employer in this case. The Court also observed with
respect to Article 13(1), as interpreted by the Keshavan Madhava case, the word
‘void’ would not apply for non-citizen from pre-constitution laws.
With respect to Article 13 (2), the Court observed,
“Therefore, when article 13(2) uses the expression ‘void’, it can only
mean void as against persons whose fundamental rights are taken
away or abridged by law. The law might be ‘still-born’ so far as the
persons, entities or denominations whose fundamental rights are
taken away or abridged. Still, there is no reason why the law should
be void or ‘still-born’ as against those who have no fundamental
rights (meaning non-citizens).”
Do Personal Laws Fall under the Ambit of Article 13(3)?
Article 13(3)(a) includes any law including ordinance, order, bye-laws, rule,
regulations, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force
of law. In a nutshell, the Clause is not exhaustive and shall contain all those laws
that violate fundamental rights.
Article 13(3)(b) includes laws passed or made by the legislature or other
competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this
Constitution and not previously repealed. It means the same thing as ‘existing law’
defined in Article 372 of the Indian Constitution.
Comprehensively and with a combined reading of both Clauses (2) and (3) (a) of
Article 13, Clause (2) states that the State shall not make any law that violates the
fundamental right of the individual. Clause (3) (a) states law includes custom and
usage. The issue is custom and usage in a territory cannot be made by the
legislature thereof. Then how is it included in the inclusive definition of law?
But here is where the language of the statutes is interpreted differently. And even
the interpretation, in some ways, remains inconsistent.
In State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali (1951), the Bombay High Court had
to decide the validity of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages
Act 1946. The Court answered whether personal laws could be interpreted as ‘laws
in force’ as mentioned under Article 13(3)(a).
Hon’ble. Justice M.C. Chagla felt that Article 13 (3) (a) uses the expression ‘law’
and not ‘personal law’. The issue was whether personal law should be included in
Article 13 (3) (a) or Article 13 (3) (b). The former includes statutory law, and the
latter is far wider, including all law enforced after 1950. The Court held:
“the expression “personal law” is not used in Article 13 because, in
any opinion, the framers of the Constitution wanted to leave the
personal laws outside the ambit of Part III of the Constitution. They
must have been aware that these personal laws needed to be reformed
in many material particulars, and in fact they wanted to abolish these
different personal laws and to evolve one common code. Yet they did
not wish that the provisions of the personal laws should be
challenged by reason of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III
of the Constitution and so they did not intend to include these
personal laws within the definition of the expression’ laws in force’.”
The Court, in this case, opined that personal laws could not be part of the inclusive
definition of ‘law’ under Article 13.
In 2017, in Shayara Bano v. Union of India And Ors. (also called Triple Talaq
judgement) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an opportunity to observe the
inclusion of personal laws in Article 13. But the Court believed that since Shariat
law is a statutory law codified by the central legislative assembly, the rights with
Muslim men to pronounce triple talaq and get divorced is arbitrary and
unreasonable.
Justice Fali Nariman and J. Lalit were of the opinion that the 1937 Act fell under
the expression ‘law in force’ under Article 13(3)(b). And therefore, the Triple
Talaq law was pronounced inconsistent with the Indian Constitution. Justice
Nariman also doubted the interpretation of Narusu Judgement that drew a
difference between the two kinds of laws.
In 2018, Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State Of Kerala, also called
the Sabarimala Case, dealt with the same question. The Court, in this case, said
that the ‘individual’ is at the heart of the Indian Constitution, and as far as any law
affected the individual, it could fall under Article 13(3). The Court observed:
“As per Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution, “law” includes custom
or usage, and would have the force of law.”
The Court had said that prohibiting women of 10-50 years of age in the Sabarimala
Temple under a custom is not reasonable or ‘universal’. And all valid customs
must be ‘reasonable, certain and continous’.
Looking At Article 13 Vis-À-Vis The Basic Structure
Doctrine
On one side, Article 13(2) of the Indian Constitution says that the Parliament
cannot make a law that takes away or abridges fundamental rights. On the other,
Article 368 gives the Parliament the power to amend the fundamental rights by a
special majority in the Parliament.
In I. C. Golaknath & Ors vs the State Of Punjab, the Court dealt with whether
exercising power under Article 368 can nullify the effects of Article 13 of the
Indian Constitution; and whether Parliament had the power to amend Part III of the
Constitution.
In its order, the majority Bench of six to seven held that every constitutional
amendment also partakes the same features as a normal statute. Therefore, it is
covered under Article 13 (3) (a).
Once it is covered, the limitation of Article 13 (2) comes into the picture, which
states that ‘the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the
rights’. Then no such amendment could be made that abridges any part of the
Constitution.
Although the Court in the Golaknath case held that the Parliament had no power to
amend Part III of the Indian Constitution, the Parliament responded by enacting the
Twenty-fourth Constitutional Amendment. Using which the Parliament inserted a
new Clause to Article 13; Article 13(4).
This piece has also implicitly applied the importance of judicial review,
responsible for clearly reading Article 13 to shield fundamental rights. Although
the case laws interpreting Article 13 has been inconsistent, it does answer some
important questions.