🧠 What is Article 13 in Simple Words?
Article 13 protects Fundamental Rights by ensuring that no law (past or future) can take them away.
It gives power to courts to cancel or strike down any law that violates Fundamental Rights.
This power is called the Doctrine of Judicial Review.
🧱 Article 13 = Foundation of 3 Important Things:
| Concept | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 🔐 Judicial Review | Courts can cancel laws violating FRs |
| 🛡 Constitution is Supreme | No law can override the Constitution |
| ⚖️ Fundamental Rights are Protected | Laws against FRs are struck down |
🧩 Article 13 has 4 Clauses – Let’s Learn Easily One by One:
✅ Clause 1 – Past Laws
📝 All laws made before 26 Jan 1950 (when Constitution started) will be void if they violate Fundamental Rights.
📌 Example:
Let’s say there was a British-era law banning freedom of speech.
➡️ That law becomes invalid (void) only for the part that violates Article 19.
✅ Clause 2 – Future Laws
📝 The State cannot make any new law that takes away or reduces Fundamental Rights.
If it does, that law becomes void.
📌 Example:
A new law says: “Only rich people can vote.”
❌ This violates Article 14 (Right to Equality).
✅ The Court can strike it down using Article 13(2).
✅ Clause 3 – What is ‘Law’? (Wide Meaning)
🧾 ‘Law’ includes many things, not just Acts passed by Parliament.
| Included in “Law” | Examples |
|---|---|
| 📘 Permanent Laws | IPC, RTI Act |
| 🕐 Temporary Laws | Ordinances by President or Governor |
| 🧑⚖️ Delegated Laws | Rules, Notifications, Bye-laws |
| 📜 Customs & Usages | Traditional practices having force of law |
📌 Example:
A temple custom says “Women can’t enter.”
➡️ If this custom violates FR, it can be struck down (like in Sabarimala Case).
✅ Clause 4 – Constitutional Amendments Not Included
📜 Constitutional amendments made under Article 368 are not considered “law” under Article 13.
BUT WAIT! There's a twist 👇
Because Article 13 uses the word "law",
and does not mention "constitutional amendments",
so in early cases, the Supreme Court said:
"Amendments are not ordinary laws — they are made using a special process (Article 368), so Article 13 does not apply to them." - Shankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1965):
🧠 In short:
Amendments = Special changes to the Constitution
Law = Ordinary Acts/rules
➡ That’s why Article 13 didn’t include amendments (as per early view).
⚖️ Important Case: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
📌 What Happened:
Parliament passed laws that took away some FRs.
The case challenged this and asked: Can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights?
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
✅ Yes, Parliament can amend FRs.
❌ But, it cannot destroy the “basic structure” of the Constitution.
So, even though Article 13 does not directly include amendments, the Supreme Court added a limit:
"If an amendment violates the basic structure, it can still be struck down."
💡 UPSC Term: Basic Structure Doctrine
🧾 What is Meant by “Law” in Article 13?
Article 13 gives broad meaning to the word "law" — not just Acts of Parliament.
| Type | Example | Covered under Article 13? |
|---|---|---|
| 🧾 Permanent Laws | IPC, RTI Act | ✅ Yes |
| 🕓 Temporary Laws | Ordinances by President or Governor | ✅ Yes |
| 🧑⚖️ Delegated Legislation | Rules, Bye-laws, Notifications | ✅ Yes |
| 🧑🏽🤝🧑🏼 Customs or Usages | Local practices with legal force | ✅ Yes |
| 📜 Constitutional Amendment | 42nd Amendment | ❌ No* |
🧠 Examples to Understand Better
✅ Example 1: Valid Law
A law gives free education to girls (supports Article 21A).
✅ It’s constitutional, not violating any FR.
❌ Example 2: Invalid Law
A law says journalists can’t report on govt matters.
❌ Violates Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech.
👉 It can be struck down under Article 13.
📚 Doctrine of Severability (Very Important)
If part of a law violates Fundamental Rights, only that part becomes void — not the whole law.
📌 Example:
-
A law has 5 sections
-
Section 3 violates Article 21
➡️ Court will remove Section 3, keep the rest if possible.
👨⚖️ Case: R.M.D.C. v. State of Bombay
Court gave rules to apply severability:
| Rule | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 🧠 Legislative Intent | Was it meant to work without the bad part? |
| 🔗 Inseparable? | If parts are mixed and can’t be separated → Whole law fails |
| 🪓 Standalone? | If good part works independently → Save it |
⚖️ More Important Cases You Should Know:
✅ Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay
Old law doesn’t vanish fully — it just becomes inactive for the part that violates FRs.
Term used: Doctrine of Eclipse
✅ Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case)
🔍 Question: Do customs fall under Article 13?
✅ Yes, if they violate Fundamental Rights, they can be struck down.
🧑⚖️ Justice Chandrachud: Customs like “women not allowed” violate Article 14, so Article 13 applies.
✅ Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
Constitutional amendments are not “law” under Article 13(2).
Later repeated in: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965)
But modified by: Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
➡️ Basic Structure Doctrine introduced.
⚖️ Related Doctrines (Made Easy)
1. 🪓 Doctrine of Severability
If part of a law violates FRs, only that part is struck down — not the whole law.
📌 R.M.D.C. v. State of Bombay:
-
Law split into valid & invalid parts.
-
Valid parts survive if separable.
2. 🌒 Doctrine of Eclipse
Old (pre-1950) laws violating FRs are not dead, just "eclipsed".
If FR is changed later, the law can be used again.
📌 Bhikaji v. State of MP (1955):
-
Motor vehicle law made pre-Constitution was unconstitutional.
-
Later made valid through constitutional amendment.
3. 🚫 Doctrine of Waiver
A person cannot "waive" or give up their Fundamental Rights.
📌 Muthiah v. CIT (1957):
-
Fundamental Rights are not just personal, but for public good.
-
Cannot be surrendered voluntarily.
4. 🏛 Doctrine of Basic Structure
Some parts of the Constitution (e.g., FRs, democracy, secularism) cannot be changed, even by amendment.
📌 Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973):
-
Supreme Court created the “Basic Structure Doctrine”.
5. 🔮 Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
A new judgment applies only in the future, not on past cases.
📌 Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967):
-
Parliament cannot amend FRs (judgment applied prospectively).
⚖️ Important Supreme Court Cases List
| Case | What it Established |
|---|---|
| 🔹 Keshavananda Bharati (1973) | Basic Structure Doctrine |
| 🔹 Bhikaji v. State of MP (1955) | Doctrine of Eclipse |
| 🔹 R.M.D.C. v. Bombay | Doctrine of Severability |
| 🔹 Muthiah v. CIT (1957) | No Waiver of FRs |
| 🔹 Sabarimala Case (2018) | Customs violating FRs can be struck |
| 🔹 Golaknath Case (1967) | Prospective Overruling introduced |
| 🔹 Marbury v. Madison (US) | Judicial Review origin |
📌 Final Summary Table:
| Clause | What it Means | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 13(1) | Old laws (pre-1950) violating FRs are void | British-era censorship law |
| 13(2) | Govt can't make new laws violating FRs | A new law banning protests |
| 13(3) | ‘Law’ includes Acts, rules, customs | Sabarimala Temple entry |
| 13(4) | Amendments under Article 368 not included | Overruled if they break Basic Structure |
🧠 UPSC Notes (One-liners for Quick Revision)
-
🔹 Article 13 makes FRs justiciable and protected from invalid laws.
-
🔹 Judicial Review is a Basic Feature of the Constitution.
-
🔹 Amendments are not “law” under Art 13, but can be challenged if they destroy basic structure.
-
🔹 Law includes statutes, rules, customs, etc.
-
🔹 Fundamental Rights cannot be waived.
-
🔹 Severability = Remove the bad part, keep the rest.
-
🔹 Eclipse = Old law not dead, just sleeping.
-
🔹 Prospective Overruling = New law applies from now, not backdated.
🧠 Easy Diagram (Text Form)
ARTICLE 13 – LAW VS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
┌────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ If a LAW → Violates FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS │
│ ↓ │
│ That LAW becomes VOID │
│ ↓ │
│ Court (SC/HC) strikes it down │
└────────────────────────────────────────────┘
🧪 Quick Quiz (MCQs)
-
Which of these is NOT included in Article 13’s definition of ‘law’?
a) Ordinances
b) Rules & Notifications
c) Customs
d) Constitutional Amendments
✅ Answer: d) Constitutional Amendments -
Which case gave us the Doctrine of Severability?
a) Kesavananda Bharati
b) R.M.D.C. v. State of Bombay
c) Golaknath v. State of Punjab
d) Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
✅ Answer: b) R.M.D.C. v. State of Bombay
📝 MCQs for Practice
-
Which of the following is not included in the term “law” under Article 13?
a) Parliamentary Acts
b) Governor’s Ordinance
c) Constitutional Amendments
d) Municipal Bye-laws
✅ Answer: c) Constitutional Amendments -
Which case established the “Basic Structure Doctrine”?
a) Golaknath Case
b) Minerva Mills Case
c) R.C. Cooper Case
d) Kesavananda Bharati Case
✅ Answer: d) Kesavananda Bharati Case
✍️ Mains Answer Point:
"Article 13 empowers courts to strike down any law, rule, ordinance, or custom that violates Fundamental Rights. It reflects the Doctrine of Judicial Review, a basic feature of the Constitution, and is the foundation for constitutional supremacy in India."