Article 13 of Indian Constitution | With Important Case Laws | Indian Polity
Articles,  Blog

Article 13 of Indian Constitution | With Important Case Laws | Indian Polity

Hello everybody, My name is Priya. In today’s video, we are going to talk about
Article 13. When we were making our constitution, we already
had a lot of nations as example, which adopted democratic and humanitarian concept. So our founding fathers endeavoured to formulate
something which reflects multiple things like rights of minority, principle of UDHR, our
struggle for independence and what not. Therefore, while making the constitution,
part III was discussed for 38 days. SO these are our rights & freedoms & this
is our state. Part III exists with the same objective that
our rights & freedoms should be protected against state’s arbitrary invasion. So this means that state’s actions should
be judged on the basis of their impact on the right & freedoms of the people. This entire concept is your Article 13. Basically Article 13 deals with 4 principles
relating to Fundamental Rights. First thing that you should have a clarity
about is that, since when the fundament right have existed. Fundamental Rights have existed since the
time our present constitution has existed i.e. 26th January, 1950. Fundamental rights became operative from and
on this date only. Article 13 (1) deals with Pre constitutional
laws. There were many different laws that were present
before constitution came into being, and remained in effect even after that. Article 13 provides that those laws (existing
prior to constitution) which are consistent with fundamental rights will remain valid. Now lets understand this with an example. There was an education Act of 1930 which had
many clauses which dealt with subjects like appointment of chairman, what will be the
amount of fund that will be allocated, what will be the age group of the children. Among other things, there was this one clause
which said kids from a certain caste shall not be admitted in the school. Now since 1950, this clause stands in contravention
of the fundamental rights. While applying clause 1 in the same example,
we can say that since this clause is against the fundamental rights, it would become void. For more clarity on this concept, lets have
a look on the two doctrines, which are related to Article 13 i.e. Doctrine of Severability & Doctrine of Eclipse. The first doctrine is doctrine of Severability
or separability, which means to separate. In simple language, you have to use a filter
for all pre constitutional laws, i.e. if it respects fundamental rights or not. All the laws which pass successfully through
this filter are valid. The laws which cannot pass have to be separated. This is your doctrine of severability. A very important case for doctrine of severability
is A.K.Gopalan v. state of Madras. In this, section 14 of the Preventive Detention
Act was challenged. According to section 14, if any person is
detained under this act, he cannot disclose grounds of detention in the court. So section 14 was against the fundamental
rights. If you apply doctrine of severability here
and filter out this Act, only section 14 of the act was not respecting fundamental rights. S according to doctrine of separation, if
we filter out Preventive Detention Act only section 14 is inconsistent with fundamental
right. So we will minus only this provision from
the act, and the remaining act shall remain valid. Simply doctrine of separation means to filter
out, to check all the acts. All those laws which respect fundamental rights
shall be valid. All those which are inconsistent with fundamental
rights shall become invalid. The other doctrine of Article 13 is Doctrine
of eclipse. Eclipse means to hide. Lets understand it through a case. Eclipse means to shadow something, to hide. Like there are 3 kinds of volcanos, sleeping
active & dead, section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act was not a dead section. But just a sleeping section. Lets check this case to further understand
how doctrine of eclipse functions. In case of Bhikhaji v. State of M.P., Berar
MV Act was challenged. There were certain sections in this Act which
empowered the state government to transfer the ownership of all of the motor business
to itself. After 1950, all those provisions became violate
of Article 19. So what would happen now is, we will filter
out the whole Act first, and remove all those sections which are inconsistent with Fundamental
rights. Then we will apply doctrine and eclipse, we
will say that fundamental rights will prevail over these sections. Meaning that all these sections become inoperative. What happened next is that Article 19 was
amended and government was authorised to monopolise certain businesses. So these sections which were inoperative because
of section 19, will now become active. So basically, doctrine of severability says
that all the pre existing laws shall be filtered out with respect to fundamental rights. All those laws which respect fundamental rights
shall become valid. Now come to the next step i.e. doctrine of
eclipse, now all those laws which cannot pass this filter, which were separated which are
invalid or inconsistent with fundamental rights, shall be shadowed by fundamental rights. Fundamental rights would eclipse them, hide
them. Meaning that they shall not cease to exist,
but only become inoperative. If any amendment takes place in future and
all those fundamental rights become consistent with fundamental rights, they will again become
active. So Article 13 (1) deals with pre-constitutional
law meaning the laws which existed before the constitution of India came into existence. If such laws are against fundamental rights,
they shall become invalid. Now the extent to which they shall remain
invalid shall be determined by application of 2 doctrines viz. Doctrine of Severability & Doctrine of Eclipse. Article 13 (2) talks about post constitutional
laws, meaning the laws that came into existence after Indian constitution did. The state is prohibited. The state cannot make such laws which are
against the fundamental rights. If such inconsistent laws are made, they shall
be void. To what extent they would be void, shall be
defined by application off these doctrines. There were a lot of twists in Article 13 (2)
which were settled in State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills. In this case, a certain labour welfare fund
was challenged. It contained certain questions which were
against fundamental rights. Now it was clear that after constitution came
into effect, state did not have power to pass a law which is against fundamental rights. The question in this case was that, fundamental
rights are available to citizens. What about non-citizens and companies? In this case, the respondent was a company,
who was not granted the fundamental rights. In respect of that, would this act be valid
or not? The supreme court said because the fundamental
rights are not granted to companies, these sections will still, be operative for non-citizens. So basically 1st, state is prohibited from
making any laws which are against the fundamental rights. 2nd, even if such a law is made, it shall
not be applicable on the citizens. But all those categories of parties which
have not been granted fundamental rights like companies, non-citizens, for them, that piece
of legislation is still operative. That is not void, that is valid. I hope you are clear with article 13 (1) & (2). 13 (2) & (4), which are very important shall
be discussed in part II of the video. Please comment down below how did you like
the video and if you have any doubts. That’s it for now, see you in the next class,
bye bye!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *