This article is written by Yuti Malhotra and it is about Article 13 in the Constitution of India.
Indian Constitution Fundamental Rights Article 13 Retrospective Application Judicial Review Doctrine of Eclipse
Introduction to Article 13
The preamble of the Indian Constitution states that Indian democratic governments are “Of the people, For the people, and by the people”. Our constitution makers envisioned a nation where its citizens’ rights are paramount. Part III of the constitution brings this objective to realization. The state has considerable power to amend and implement provisions of the constitution, however, the primary function of these provisions shall be to preserve the fundamental rights of the people. The entire concept of Article 13 revolves around the underlying belief that any law that transgresses and encroaches upon citizens’ basic human rights shall be dismissed.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS AND ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 13
Article 13(1) – Retrospective Application and Judicial Review
Article 13(1) – This clause deals with whether Article 13 should be applied retrospectively. Several pre-constitution laws were scrutinized to decide if any law, violative of fundamental rights would be declared void ab initio i.e. null and void from the point it came into effect, or void with prospective effect. Consequently, in the case of Keshavan Madhavan Menon vs Union of India, a seven-judge bench of the apex court ruled that a person who had committed the offense before the law had been declared null and void shall be prosecuted. However, no under-trial shall be convicted after the infringing law is struck down.
The doctrine of eclipse, which holds its roots in this article itself, states that any law inconsistent with the basic structure of the constitution shall, to the extent of such violation of fundamental rights, be void. Laws are not completely erased rather; specific provisions are eclipsed unless and until the statute undergoes constitutional amendment. The doctrine evolved as a result of the judicial interpretation of the article, underlying the adaptability of existing laws in the dynamic legal landscape.
Article 13(2) – Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Vigilance
Article 13(2)- This provision underscores the Indian judiciary’s central role in scrutinizing laws that do not align with the core principles and fundamental rights of the constitution. In the landmark case of Shankari Prasad Deo v/s Union of India, a pivotal question regarding the validity of Article 31 was raised. The first constitutional amendment was introduced to insulate the land reform laws from annulment. The court adjudicated in Favour of parliamentary sovereignty opining that the term “law “in Article 13(2) corresponds only to ordinary legislation and does not include constitutional amendments. Thus, affirming that the Parliament, under Article 368 holds the power to amend the Constitution.
However, in the case of Golaknath v/s State of Punjab, the Apex Court unequivocally reasoned in favor of judicial vigilance over legislative functions. Judges believed that since the Indian constitution believes in the supremacy of human rights, Parliament does not have the liberty to amend fundamental rights enshrined in Part III. This judgment reversed the verdict in the Shankari Prasad deo case and established a landmark precedent demarking limits on parliamentary power. The case holds importance in the legal edifice as it fortified Fundamental rights against transient governments.
Kesavananda Bharti case judgment partially overruled the Golaknath case verdict by establishing that the Parliament has the liberty to amend the constitution however, the basic structure shall be kept intact. This verdict struck an equilibrium between constitutional flexibility and its foundational principles.
The state of Gujarat and others v/s Shri Ambika Mills case is one of the many cases that laid a precedent in interpreting Article 13(2). The petitioner argued that certain provisions of the Bombay Welfare Fund Act 1953 which prohibited selling of vacant land without government permission, violated Article 19(f). As the matter reached the Supreme Court of India, it was held that since fundamental rights apply only to citizens, Ambika Mills, being a company cannot claim relief.
Understanding “law” and “law in force”
Article 13(3)- Article 13(3)(a) provides an objective and inclusive understanding of the term’s “law” and “law in force” to include ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, customs, and usages. Such a comprehensive definition ensures that fundamental rights are well-guarded by the judiciary. Article 13(3)(b) mentions that “laws” include all the pre-constitutional laws as well, unless and until they are repealed due to legal irregularities.
The state of Bombay v/s Narasu Appa Mali stands as a cornerstone in the annals of Indian constitutional jurisprudence addressing the dynamics of personal laws. The petitioner claimed that some provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946 were discriminatory when read with Articles 14,15, and 16. The court underscored the distinction between statutory laws and personal laws asserting the contention that personal laws, having derived their authority from religious texts and scriptures, cannot be placed in the same category as other laws. Hence, these laws are beyond the purview of judicial review in for resonance with fundamental rights.
Article 13(4) – Insulation of Constitutional Amendments: Purpose and Implications
Article 13(4)- This clause delineates a carve-out within the Indian constitution ensuring that changes brought after going through the rigorous procedure outlined in Article 368, shall not be declared null and void based on Article 13. This provision, insulates constitutional amendments against being struck down due to infringement of any of the Fundamental rights, thus differentiating and elevating them from ordinary legislation.
Role of Article 13 in Safeguarding Democratic Principles
These nuances demonstrate the intricate dynamics of constitutional adaptability such that the ethos of the Indian constitution is kept alive under all circumstances. In the words of Justice Felix Frankfurter, “The safeguard of democracy is in the eternal vigilance of the people to ensure that the Constitution does not become a vehicle for tyranny, as well as in the wisdom of its provisions, providing for flexibility and rigidity where necessary.” Article 13, accurately embodies the essence of Justice Frankfurter’s wise words. Indian Constitution is a living document offering flexibility and scope of evolution with time however, certain provisions provide appropriate oversight and balancing.
REFERENCES —
