Constitution of Bharat: Article 13: Part 2

 

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution deals with the protection of fundamental rights by invalidating laws that are inconsistent with or infringe upon these rights. Here's an analysis of how amendments and central and state enactments interact with Article 13:

Effects of Amendments:

1. Judicial Review and Constitutional Amendments:
   • Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967): This case initially held that Parliament could not amend fundamental rights under Article 368 to abridge or take away these rights, due to the provisions of Article 13(2). However, this decision was later overruled.
   • 24th Amendment (1971): Added clause (4) to Article 13, stating that nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under Article 368. This amendment was intended to counteract the Golak Nath ruling, affirming Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, including fundamental rights.
   • Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established the "Basic Structure Doctrine", where amendments could not alter the basic structure of the Constitution, which includes fundamental rights. While this case did not directly amend Article 13, it set limits on how far amendments could go in potentially infringing on fundamental rights.
2. Impact on Ninth Schedule Laws:
   • Amendments like the 1st, 4th, 17th, and 29th added various laws to the Ninth Schedule, which were meant to be immune from judicial review for inconsistency with fundamental rights. However, the Supreme Court in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) held that laws in the Ninth Schedule could still be reviewed if they violated the basic structure of the Constitution, effectively bringing them under Article 13's scrutiny.

Effects of Central and State Enactments:

1. Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights:
   • Pre-Constitutional Laws: At the commencement of the Constitution, laws already in force were subject to Article 13(1), making those inconsistent with Part III void to the extent of inconsistency. An example is the invalidation of certain sections of the Berar Motor Vehicles Act in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955).
   • Post-Constitutional Laws: Under Article 13(2), any new law that contravenes fundamental rights is void to the extent of the contravention. For instance, the Supreme Court has struck down provisions in various laws like land acquisition acts or tax laws if they abridged fundamental rights without proper justification.
2. Doctrine of Eclipse:
   • This doctrine, evolved through cases like Bhikaji Narain Dhakras, states that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are not void ab initio but are "eclipsed" until such inconsistency is removed by amendment or judicial interpretation. Once the inconsistency is resolved (e.g., by amendment), the law becomes operative again.
3. Severability:
   • If only a part of a law is inconsistent with fundamental rights, only that part is void, not the entire law, provided the remaining part remains meaningful without the invalidated section. This principle was applied in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950).
4. State Enactments:
   • State legislatures must also ensure their laws comply with Article 13 to avoid being struck down by the judiciary. For instance, state laws on personal or religious matters have been scrutinized under Article 13, especially where they intersect with rights to equality or freedom of religion.

In summary, Article 13 creates a framework where both central and state legislative actions are continuously scrutinized to ensure they do not infringe upon fundamental rights. Amendments can change this dynamic, particularly when they aim to protect or expand legislative power, but they must navigate the confines set by judicial interpretations like the Basic Structure Doctrine. This ongoing interaction between legislation, amendments, and judicial review under Article 13 ensures the protection of fundamental rights within the Indian constitutional framework.