We all know every country has its own written or unwritten constitution for the governance of its nation. The constitution is a document a legal one in which laws are incorporated and these laws help to run the society. But mere laws enacted are not enough there must be a panel of legal experts who look in all the pros and cons of the enacted law thus, just to ensure the basic structure is not disturbed thus here comes the role of the judiciary who exercise their judicial review power over the laws enacted and to declare them unconstitutional if they violate the fundamental rights.
LAWS INCONSISTENT WITH FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS:
Article 13 of the Indian constitution
Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights
(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far
as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void (3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires.
Law includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law; laws in force include laws passed or made by Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas (4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Article 368
Article 13 (1) declares that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this constitution shall be void to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the Indian constitution.
- This clause says that all the laws which were in existence before the coming of this constitution shall be void if they violate Part III of the Indian Constitution.
- It means that the earlier laws before the coming of this constitution are all void if they are inconsistent with the fundamental rights mentioned in Part III of the constitution.
ARTICLE 13 (2) says that the state shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights.
- It means that after the commencement of the constitution the state is not allowed to make any law which is contrary to fundamental rights.
- Any law made by the state in contravention to fundamental rights shall be void to the extent they are in contravention with fundamental rights.
ARTICLE 13 (3) says that the term law is having a very broad connotation.
- The term law includes any ordinance, order, by-law, rule, regulation, custom or usage, notification having the force of law.
- Not only legislative enactment but anything mentioned above can be void if they challenge Part III.
- All the laws, order, regulations, custom or usage, a notification can be challenged if they are infringing fundamental rights.
The objective of Article 13:
In RENU v. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AIR 2014 SC 2175, the main objective of this article is to secure the paramountcy of the constitution especially with regard to fundamental rights envisaged Part III of the Indian constitution.
The power of judicial review has been conferred upon the High Courts and Supreme Court of India under article 226 and 32 of the INDIAN CONSTITUTION.
These courts can declare a law unconstitutional if it is inconsistent or violative of fundamental rights or with any provision of Part III of the Constitution.
The high courts supreme court can declare a law void to the extent they in contrary to fundamental rights. The power of judicial review exercised by the judiciary plays the role of an effective guardian of the fundamental rights