Fundamental Rights - Basic Structure - Art 12 13
Summary
TLDRThis video provides an in-depth analysis of the term 'State' under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, highlighting its importance in protecting fundamental rights. It discusses the evolution of the term 'other authorities' and its impact on expanding state definition. The script also covers Article 13, focusing on judicial review of laws against fundamental rights, the doctrine of eclipse, severability, and the landmark doctrine of basic structure that safeguards the Constitution's core elements from legislative overreach.
Takeaways
- 🏛️ The term 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India includes the government and Parliament of India, the government and legislature of each state, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India.
- 📚 Fundamental rights are based on human rights, which are embodiments of universal natural rights, and the state must not transgress these rights.
- 🚫 The state is prohibited from going beyond constitutional permissibility to transgress fundamental rights, as it would defeat their purpose.
- 📖 The scope of the term 'other authorities' has been expanded by the Supreme Court of India through various judgments, thereby widening the protection of fundamental rights.
- 🏛️ In the case of University of Madras vs. Santai, the court applied the rule of 'eiusdem generis' to interpret 'other authorities', but this was later rejected in Ambica vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
- 📊 The court laid down tests in the case of Arieti to determine if an authority is an instrumentality of the state, considering factors like government control and public functions.
- 🏦 In S. Prash vs. Union of India, a company was for the first time considered an authority within the meaning of Article 12, based on the 'brooding presence of the state'.
- 📜 Article 13 of the Constitution of India is crucial for judicial review of laws that infringe upon fundamental rights.
- ⚖️ The doctrine of 'eclipse' was established in the case of Bikaji vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, which states that pre-constitutional laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights are not completely void but continue to provide relief for rights accrued within their period of application.
- 📑 The doctrine of severability, established in RMDC vs. Union of India, helps determine whether an inconsistent part of a law is separable from the consistent part, affecting the law's validity.
- 🏛️ The basic structure doctrine, introduced in Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, asserts that Parliament cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution even through amendments.
Q & A
What does the term 'State' mean under Article 12 of the Constitution of India?
-Under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the term 'State' includes the government and Parliament of India, the government and legislature of each state, and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the government of India.
What is the significance of the term 'other authorities' in Article 12?
-The term 'other authorities' is significant as it determines the scope of entities that can be considered as the 'State'. The broader the interpretation, the more entities are included, thereby expanding the protection of fundamental rights.
How did the interpretation of 'other authorities' evolve over time?
-Initially, 'other authorities' were interpreted to mean institutions similar to Parliament and legislatures with rule-making powers. This changed over time to include statutory bodies and eventually non-statutory bodies, with the Supreme Court laying down tests to determine if an entity is an instrumentality of the state.
What was the landmark case that expanded the definition of 'other authorities' to include a company?
-The landmark case that expanded the definition of 'other authorities' to include a company was S. Prashant versus Union of India, where the court noted the determinant factor as the 'brooding presence of the state' behind the operations of the body.
What are the tests laid down by the Supreme Court to determine if a body is an instrumentality of the state?
-The tests include whether the government holds the entire share capital, if the body is financially dependent on the state, if it enjoys a monopoly status conferred by the state, if there is deep and pervasive state control, or if it performs public functions closely related to those performed by the government.
What is the purpose of Article 13 of the Constitution of India?
-Article 13 is a key provision that lays down the scope for judicial review of laws that infringe upon fundamental rights. It ensures that laws do not contravene the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
What does Clause 1 of Article 13 imply for pre-constitutional laws?
-Clause 1 of Article 13 declares that all pre-constitutional laws are void to the extent they are inconsistent with fundamental rights. This gave rise to the doctrine of eclipse, which states that inconsistent laws are not completely wiped out but continue to provide relief for rights accrued within their period of application.
How does the doctrine of severability relate to Article 13?
-The doctrine of severability, established in the case of R.M.D.C. versus Union of India, helps determine whether an inconsistent part of a law can be separated from the consistent part. If the parts are separable and the remaining part can stand independently, only the inconsistent part is rendered void.
What is the doctrine of basic structure and how does it relate to Article 13?
-The doctrine of basic structure, established in the case of Kesavananda Bharati versus State of Kerala, states that while Parliament can amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure. This doctrine is closely linked to the limitations imposed by Article 13 on legislative power.
What are some elements that constitute the basic structure of the Constitution of India?
-Elements of the basic structure include the supremacy of the Constitution, democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, the mandate to build a welfare state, and the unity and integrity of the nation.
Outlines
🏛️ Overview of the Term 'State' in the Indian Constitution
The paragraph discusses the term 'State' as defined under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing its role in safeguarding fundamental rights. It highlights that the state includes the government and Parliament of India, state governments and legislatures, and local or other authorities within India's territory. The paragraph delves into the interpretation of 'other authorities' and how the judiciary has expanded its definition over time. It mentions key court cases like University of Madras vs. Santai and Ambai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, which have contributed to the evolving understanding of what constitutes an authority under Article 12. The paragraph concludes by outlining tests to determine if an entity is an instrumentality of the state, such as government control, financial dependence, and the performance of public functions.
📚 Article 13: Judicial Review and the Scope of Fundamental Rights
This section focuses on Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which outlines the scope for judicial review of laws that infringe upon fundamental rights. It explains that Article 13(1) declares all pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights to be void, and discusses the doctrine of eclipse that allows such laws to continue providing relief for rights accrued during their application period. The paragraph also addresses the challenge of determining the validity of post-constitutional laws under Article 13(2), introducing the doctrine of severability. This doctrine, explained through the case of RMDC vs. Union of India, provides guidelines for determining whether an inconsistent part of a law can be separated from the consistent part. The paragraph concludes by discussing the inclusion of various forms of directives and notifications under the term 'law' in Article 13(3), and touches upon the doctrine of basic structure in relation to constitutional amendments.
🏛️ The Doctrine of Basic Structure in Constitutional Law
The paragraph explores the doctrine of basic structure, which is central to understanding the limitations on the legislative power to amend the Constitution. It discusses the historical background of this doctrine, starting with the case of Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs. Union of India, where the court first considered the scope of constitutional amendments. The paragraph details how subsequent cases, including Golaknath vs. State of Punjab and Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, shaped the doctrine. It explains that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter the basic structure, which includes principles like the supremacy of the Constitution, democratic governance, secularism, separation of powers, federalism, and the mandate to build a welfare state. The paragraph also mentions how the 42nd Amendment Act attempted to limit judicial review but was eventually struck down in the Minerva Mills vs. Union of India case, reaffirming the judiciary's role in upholding the basic structure of the Constitution.
📜 Conclusion: The Impact of Basic Structure Doctrine
The final paragraph summarizes the significance of the basic structure doctrine in Indian constitutional law. It highlights how the doctrine has shaped the balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary, ensuring that fundamental rights and the basic structure of the Constitution are protected from arbitrary amendments. The paragraph also reflects on the historical importance of cases like Kesavananda Bharati and Minerva Mills, which have reinforced the doctrine's role in maintaining the sanctity of the Constitution. The speaker concludes by expressing hope that the video has provided valuable insights into the basic structure doctrine and its implications for constitutional law in India.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡State
💡Fundamental Rights
💡Article 12
💡Instrumentality of the State
💡Judicial Review
💡Pre-constitutional Laws
💡Doctrine of Severability
💡Basic Structure Doctrine
💡Directive Principles of State Policy
💡Republican and Democratic Form of Government
💡Separation of Powers
Highlights
Definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India includes the government and Parliament of India, and the government and legislature of each state.
Fundamental rights are boundaries that the state cannot transgress under any circumstances.
The term 'other authorities' is significant for expanding the scope of 'State' under Article 12.
The Supreme Court has expanded the meaning of 'State' by interpreting 'other authorities'.
In University of Madras vs Santai, the term 'other authorities' was initially interpreted to mean institutions with rule-making power.
The interpretation of 'other authorities' was later broadened to include statutory bodies.
In the case of S. Prashant vs Union of India, a company was first considered an authority within the meaning of Article 12.
The 'brooding presence of the state' behind an organization's operations is a key determinant of it being an authority.
The court established tests to determine if an authority is an instrumentality of the state in Arieti vs International Airport Authority of India.
The rigidity of the tests laid down in Ajasia was revisited in Pradeep Kumar Visvas to allow for a more flexible interpretation.
Financial, functional, and administrative dominance of the government is a key factor in determining an instrumentality of the state.
Article 13 of the Constitution of India provides the scope for judicial review of laws that infringe upon fundamental rights.
All pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void according to Clause 1 of Article 13.
The doctrine of eclipse was established in Bikaji vs State of Madhya Pradesh, allowing inconsistent laws to provide relief for accrued rights.
Post-constitutional laws are void ab initio if they are inconsistent with fundamental rights, as per Clause 2 of Article 13.
The doctrine of severability was introduced in R.M.D.C. vs Union of India to determine the separability of valid and invalid parts of a law.
The term 'law' in Article 13 includes ordinances, orders, bylaws, rules, regulations, notifications, customs, and usages.
The doctrine of basic structure was introduced in Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala to protect the Constitution's fundamental features from legislative overreach.
The basic structure of the Constitution includes supremacy of the Constitution, democratic form of government, secular character, separation of powers, federal character, and mandate to build a welfare state.
The 42nd Amendment Act attempted to limit judicial review, but was invalidated in Minerva Mills vs Union of India, affirming judicial review as part of the basic structure.
Transcripts
[Music]
Hello friends I'm sugan Saka and today
we are going to have an overview of the
meaning of the term State as used under
article 12 of The Constitution of India
as you know the fundamental rights and
shined under the constitution of India
are based out of human rights which in
turn are embodiments of universal
natural rights it is imperative on state
not to transgress these rights it may
also be understood that fundament Al
rights are the boundary which the state
shall under no circumstance Beyond
constitutional permissibility transgress
as that shall frustrate the very purpose
and objective of fundamental rights in
lie of this it is very important to
understand what a state shall mean so as
to protect those entitled with certain
fundamental rights under the part three
of the
Constitution according to article 12 of
The Constitution unless the context
otherwise requires the state shall
include the government and Parliament of
India and the government and legislature
of each of the state and all local or
other authorities within the territory
of India or under the control of the
government of India as far as the first
two components of the definition are
concerned there is little to no scope of
any ambiguity in them but the vital
question has been what it must mean by
the term other authorities this term is
of immense significance as it is here
where widening of the scope of this
definition is possible The Wider the
meaning the more authorities can be
brought within the AIT of article 12
hence expanding the protection of the
fundamental rights therefore the epics
court has judiciously expanded the
meaning of the term state by its
interpretation of the term other
authorities this may be witnessed by the
gradual widening of the scope of the
term other authorities in a phased
manner as shall be explained now at
first the question was dealt with in the
case of University of Madras versus
santai in 1954 where the rule of udm
generus was applied to the term the rule
of ausm generus essentially means of the
same kind this implies that the term
other authorities must be ascribed a
meaning similar to Parliament and
legislature that is institutions or
bodies wested with rule making however
it was later on rejected in the case of
ambai versus state of utar Pradesh in
the year 1962 this was followed by a
phase where Judiciary interpreted the
term so as to include only statutary
bodies within its embit this phase may
be noted from Rajasthan State
electricity board versus mohanlal
followed by sukdev sing versus batram
eventually to retti versus International
Airport Authority of India while in all
these cases the bodies in question were
statutary the significance of sukdev
Singh case lies in the fact that the
court referred to instrumentalities of
government as a principal further in
retti case though again the body in
question was a statutory one nonetheless
the court laid down certain tests to
determine whether an authority would be
an instrumentality of the state or not
however none of these cases could be
seen as precedent Beyond statutary
bodies being authorities within the
meaning of article
12 therefore a remarkable contribution
in the jurisprudence of the term other
authorities was made in s prash versus
Union of India where for the first time
a company was considered an authority
within the meaning of article 12 the
court noted the determinant Factor as
the brooding presence of the state
behind the operations of the body
statutary or other this paved way for
inclusion of non- statutary bodies also
under article 12 later on in aasia case
the court reiterated the tests laid down
in arietti to determine an
instrumentality of the state to
summarize the gist of these tests
following may be noted first where the
entire share capital of the body is held
by the government the body is an
instrumentality of the government second
where the financial assistance given by
the state is so large that the entire
expenses are met by such finances the
body may be said to be impregnated with
government character next if the body
enjoys Monopoly status conferred by or
protected by the state next if there
exists a deep and pervasive State
control the body is an instrumentality
of the state next if the functions
performed by the body are public
functions and closely related to those
performed by the government this could
be a relevant factor to consider the
body as an instrumentality of the
government since the rigidity of these
tests laid down in ajasia was a crucial
question to be examined the court
further clarified the same in pradep
Kumar visvas so as to remove the element
of rigidity from the same and laying
down a general proposition the quote
highlighted
Financial functional and administrative
dominance of the government to be the
determinant factor for the
identification of a body as an
instrumentality or agency of the
state as a consequence to these
developments the courts over a period of
time have declared many authorities as
agencies or instrumentalities of the
state for the purpose of article 12 now
that we've had an overview of the
meaning of the term State we shall now
proceed to Article 13 of the
Constitution of India
Article 13 is a key provision laying
down the scope for judicial review for
laws in derogation of fundamental Rights
Article 13 is a significant provision
for if not Article 13 the epics Court
could not be deemed as the guardian of
the Constitution wested with power to
interpret the statutes and test their
validity on the threshold of fundamental
rights Clause 1 to Article 13 declares
that all pre-constitutional laws shall
be void to the extent they are
inconsistent with the fundamental rights
this Clause has given rise to a
pertinent question with respect to its
effect on the given law whether such a
law is rendered dead in its entirety or
can it be revitalized in any given
situation if so how the answer to this
question was provided in the famous case
of bikaji versus state of madh Pradesh
where a pre-constitutional law an
amendment in 1947 to the CP and barar
Motor Vehicles Act of 1939
was challenged as it authorized the
state government to exclude all private
motor transport business this exception
was found inconsistent with article 191g
when the Constitution came into force in
the year 1950 as the fundamental rights
contained in the set provision allowed
freedom of occupation trade and business
the court then propounded the doctrine
of eclipse anaging that uh the
inconsistent law is not to be considered
as completely wiped out for it shall
continue to provide relief on rights
accured within its period of application
however it was for inconsistencies
arising post the commencement of the
Constitution that the laws shall be in
dant condition and if the relevant
fundamental right is amended its effect
will be to remove the Shadow and make it
free from all blemish or infirmity it
must be noted that this Doctrine is to
only apply to pre-constitutional laws as
for the postc constitutional laws they
shall be void AB initio in case of
inconsistency with fundamental
rights moving further to Clause 2 to
Article 13 it must be noted that the
provision applies to post Constitution
laws as already mentioned
post-constitutional laws do not face the
challenge similar to the one faced in
the laws falling under Clause one as
these laws are being enacted after the
Constitution has already come into Force
hence it is imperative on the
legislature not to transgress the con
constitutional boundaries however in
case the laws or any part thereof tends
to do so Clause two provides that to the
extent of such inconsistency such law
shall be void here the term void implies
void Abino and therefore it is not to be
confused with one which is in dormant or
eclipsed condition when the legislature
enacts a law inconsistent with part
three of the Constitution such law is
certainly void but will the law be void
even if only a part of it is
inconsistent it is very important to
note here in this context that Clause
two suggests that the laws is to be
rendered void only to the extent of such
inconsistency hence there shall be two
pertinent questions involved here in
which shall be first whether the
inconsistent part is separable from the
consistent part or not and second how to
deter mind whether a part is separable
or not these questions have been
answered by The Honorable Supreme Court
in the famous case of rmdc versus Union
of India in
1957 by propounding what came to be
known as the doctrine of severability
the Court laid down certain propositions
with regard to the doctrine which also
explains how Clause 2 to Article 13 is
supposed to apply the propositions are
as follows first the intent of the
legislature is a vital aspect in
determining whether valid part of a
statute is separable from the invalid
part the intention may be deduced on
reading the objects and purposes of the
legislation second where the valid and
invalid part of the statute are
inseparable it will render the entire
statute as invalid third in case the
valid and invalid part are separable it
shall also be seen whether what remains
after removing the invalid part can
stand and be enforced independently of
the removed part
fourth if what remains after removing
the invalid part is so truncated and
incapable of being enforced the entire
statute shall be rendered invalid fifth
if the valid and invalid part even
though separable form part of the same
scheme so that the valid part shall have
no meaning after removing the invalid
part the whole of the law shall be
rendered invalid as explained so far
through both Clause 1 and two the
constitution of India has imposed
limitations upon the legislative power
to surpass the constitutionally
guaranteed rights it must be reiterated
while Clause one would apply to
pre-constitutional laws Clause two is
exclusively for post-constitutional
laws further Clause 3 to Article 13
defines what the term law shall include
amongst which an ordinance order bylaw
rule regulation notification customs and
usages all have been included an
interesting observation could be The
Silence of the provision on legislative
enactments as laws however it must be
noted that it is only due to the
obviousness of the fact that acts of
legislature are laws hence no exclusive
mention relevant to this definition and
also to Clause 4 to Article 13 is the
next topic on the doctrine of basic
structure to which now we shall proceed
the doctrine of basic structure is
closely linked to the two questions
which are first whether the amendment to
the Constitution under article 368 laws
within the meaning of Article 13 Clause
3 second if not can the parliament
through its power to amend under article
368 take away or abridge the fundamental
rights guaranteed under part three to
any extent in order to proceed with the
answer to the uh stated questions
through the doctrine of basic structure
it is pertinent to delve into the
background of these questions and
thereby of the doctrine itself the
question was first raised before the
Apex Court in the case of shankari
Prasad Singh Deo versus Union of India
in 1951 when the first amendment Act of
1951 was challenged before the court the
amendment curtailed the right to
property which then was enshrined as a
fundamental right it was argued that
since Article 13 prohibited enacting
laws which take away or abdes any
fundamental right under part three this
amendment should be declared void this
argument was rejected by the epics Court
which was of the opinion that
Constitutional Amendment acts are not
laws within the meaning of Article 13
followed by this was the next case of
sajan Singh versus state of Rajasthan in
1965 when the Constitution's 17th
Amendment Act was challenged a
constitutional bench of five judges
through a majority of 3 is2 upheld the
earlier shankri Prasad Singh's decision
the dissenting minority Judgment of
Justice hiah and Justice molar were of a
differing opinion which was inclined
towards the sanctity of fundamental
rights and not to make them vulnerable
to the mercy of legislative
majority therefore not much later than
the last mentioned decision came yet
another significant decision by the 11
judge bench of the apic court in the
famous case of IC gulak versus state of
Punjab in
1967 here specifically the Punjab
security and land tenure Act of 1953 and
consequentially ially the 17th Amendment
Act was once again a subject matter of
scrutiny the bench by a majority of 6 is
to5 overruled its earlier decisions in
sankari Prasad and sajan Singh cases the
Court held that article 368 contained
only the procedure to amend and not the
power thereof which were otherwise laid
down in article 248 it said that all
legislative powers are subject to
provisions of the Constitution
constitutional amendments are to be
considered as laws within the meaning of
Article 13 hence subject to the
limitations under Clause 2 and judicial
review
resultantly no amendment to the
Constitution can take away a fundamental
right guaranteed under part three since
the 17th Amendment Act was declared
invalid by implication the amendment Act
was to be rendered void app initial this
could have resulted in invalidating a
large number of transactions already
undertaken and consequentially a flood
of litigation
therefore to avoid the chaos the court
also came up with a doctrine of
prospective overruling this implied that
the golak decision was not to overturn
earlier acts but only to restrict the
future acts of aaging fundamental rights
since the decision of the golak case was
also not devoid of its own flaws and in
the tussel between legislature and
Judiciary it was only seen as yet
another extreme contrast to the earlier
decisions the then Government tried to
legislatively overrule the golak
decision by introducing 24th 25th 26th
and 29th Amendment acts
subsequently as the union Parliament had
mostly undone the effects of golak
decision it again called for judicial
intervention in the landmark case of
keshwanand bti versus state of Kerala in
1973 this was a 13 judge bench and the
largest till date ever to be constituted
by the Supreme Court it was in this
decision that the apic court propounded
the doctrine of basic structure as the
key findings of the decision the
following may be noted first the golak
decision was overruled second the 24th
Amendment Act was held valid third the
25th Amendment act in so far as it took
away judicial review was declared
invalid fourth the 29th Amendment Act
was also found valid and last but the
most important finding was that article
368 contained procedure as well as the
power to amend the Constitution however
it does not enable Parliament to alter
the basic structure of the Constitution
the significance of the decision lies in
the fact that not just it struck a
balance between the ongoing tussle
between the legislature and the
Judiciary it reaffirmed constitutional
Supremacy without diluting the
legitimate powers of the parliament
which are again based out of the very
same Constitution hence the quanan bti
decision while it does not give
unfettered power to Parliament to amend
the fundamental rights it also did not
take away the power to amend which is
otherwise a prerogative of the
legislature and legislature alone while
the fundamental rights could be amended
those which are embodiments of the basic
structure of the Constitution shall not
be amended or amended to destroy the
basic structure the another significance
of this decision is that it recognizes
that there are other Provisions also
Beyond fundamental rights which need to
be protected from the legislative access
hence this decision can also be seen as
laying the foundation to emite
constitutionalism within the domain of
the Constitutional law of India which in
itself is a historical and a mstone
achievement by Indian
Judiciary what constitutes the basic
structure of the Constitution is the
important question the answer to which
is not exhaustive however to name a few
as laid down by the a quote in the
quesan and bti case as well as rated and
expanded in subsequent decisions are to
include the following first supremacy of
the Constitution Second Republican and
Democratic form of government third
secular character of The Constitution
fourth separation of powers between
legislature executive and the Judiciary
fifth Federal character of The
Constitution sixth the mandate to build
a welfare state contained in the
directive principles of State policy the
unity and integrity of the nation
sovereignity of India parliamentary
democracy and the three organs of the
state though the kand bti decision was
of rank creativity and significance as
already stated earlier ironically the
tussle was not to end as smoothly as
perceived a little later to the kesan
bharti decision in 1975 when the
election of shrimati Indra Gandhi was
challenged in the famous election
Petition of Indra Neu Gandhi versus Raj
Naran which is also known as the
election case the then government
introduced the 39th Amendment act
hastily a day before the hearing of the
matter before The Supreme
Court the Supreme Court declared the
imputed clause for as invalid invoking
the basic structure Doctrine by
declaring free and fair elections as
part of the basic structure feeling AG
grieved by the twin decision in the
quanan bharti and the election case the
then Parliament yet again introduced the
42nd Amendment act
1976 with this amendment almost a
revision of the Constitution was made
and most importantly Clause four and
five were added to article 368 in order
to legislatively overrule the earlier
decisions and to categorically bring
every Amendment under article 368
outside the scope of judicial review
this is when the last and decisive
battle on this question was fought in
the landmark case of of minurva Mills
versus Union of India in 1980 when the
Apex Court invalidated the newly added
Clause 4 and 5 to article 368 and the
amendment to article 31 C by the 42nd
Amendment act by declaring judicial
review as part of the basic structure of
the
Constitution with this we come to an end
to our discussion on the basic structure
Doctrine I hope the video was
informative and helpful thank
[Music]
you
Voir Plus de Vidéos Connexes
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)