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

Summary

In this video, Priya provides an insightful explanation of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, focusing on the protection of Fundamental Rights. She discusses how pre- and post-constitutional laws are evaluated for their consistency with Fundamental Rights. The video explores two important doctrines: Severability, which allows parts of a law to be valid while others are invalidated, and Eclipse, where laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights become inoperative. Through case studies, Priya clarifies how these concepts impact legal decisions and safeguard citizens' rights from state interference. This thorough breakdown aims to make Article 13 accessible and understandable for all viewers.

Takeaways

• 😀 Article 13 of the Indian Constitution focuses on protecting fundamental rights from arbitrary actions by the state.
• 😀 Fundamental rights became operative from January 26, 1950, with the enforcement of the Constitution.
• 😀 Article 13(1) deals with pre-constitutional laws, stating that those inconsistent with fundamental rights are invalid, while those that align remain valid.
• 😀 The **Doctrine of Severability** filters out parts of laws that violate fundamental rights, leaving the remaining provisions intact.
• 😀 An example of the Doctrine of Severability is the case of **A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras**, where only the conflicting section of the Preventive Detention Act was invalidated.
• 😀 The **Doctrine of Eclipse** applies to laws that were inconsistent with fundamental rights before the Constitution. These laws become dormant but can become active again if amended to comply with fundamental rights.
• 😀 The case of **Bhikhaji v. State of M.P.** illustrates the Doctrine of Eclipse, where certain provisions of an act became inoperative due to a conflict with fundamental rights.
• 😀 **Article 13(2)** prohibits the state from making laws that violate fundamental rights, rendering such laws void. However, such laws can still be valid for non-citizens or companies.
• 😀 In **State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills**, the Supreme Court ruled that laws violating fundamental rights do not apply to citizens but can still apply to non-citizens and companies.
• 😀 The protection of fundamental rights is central to the structure of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that no law, whether pre-existing or newly made, undermines these rights.

Q & A

What is the primary purpose of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution?

The primary purpose of Article 13 is to protect fundamental rights by preventing the state from making laws that infringe upon these rights. It ensures that laws, whether pre-existing or new, are consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of fundamental freedoms.

How long was Part III of the Indian Constitution discussed during its creation?

Part III of the Indian Constitution, which covers fundamental rights, was discussed for 38 days during the drafting process.

What was the key influence on the formulation of India's fundamental rights in the Constitution?

The formulation of India’s fundamental rights was influenced by democratic and humanitarian concepts adopted by various nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and India’s own struggle for independence.

What is the significance of 26th January 1950 in the context of fundamental rights?

26th January 1950 is the date when the Constitution of India came into effect, and fundamental rights became operative from this date onward.

What does Article 13(1) deal with, and how does it affect pre-constitutional laws?

Article 13(1) deals with pre-constitutional laws, meaning laws that existed before the Constitution was enacted. If these laws contradict fundamental rights, they become void. However, laws consistent with fundamental rights remain valid.

Can you explain the Doctrine of Severability with an example?

The Doctrine of Severability allows laws to be filtered for consistency with fundamental rights. If a law contains provisions that violate fundamental rights, those provisions are removed while the rest of the law remains valid. For example, in the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras case, only section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act was invalidated, while the rest of the Act remained in force.

What does the Doctrine of Eclipse mean, and how does it apply to inconsistent laws?

The Doctrine of Eclipse means that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are not completely invalid but are rendered inoperative. These laws remain on the books and can be revived if they are amended to be consistent with fundamental rights, as seen in the Bhikhaji v. State of M.P. case.

How do the Doctrines of Severability and Eclipse differ from each other?

The Doctrine of Severability filters out parts of a law that conflict with fundamental rights, leaving the rest intact. In contrast, the Doctrine of Eclipse temporarily renders inconsistent laws inoperative, but they remain valid and can be revived if amended to align with fundamental rights.

What does Article 13(2) address, and how does it impact post-constitutional laws?

Article 13(2) addresses post-constitutional laws, which are laws made after the Constitution came into effect. It prohibits the state from making laws that violate fundamental rights. Any law that conflicts with fundamental rights is deemed void.

What did the Supreme Court rule in the State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills case regarding non-citizens and companies?

In the State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills case, the Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights apply only to citizens, not to non-citizens or companies. Therefore, laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights are still valid for non-citizens or companies, even if they are void for citizens.