Introduction to Article 13 of Constitution of India

Is article 13 of the constitution of India is a fundamental right? Yes, it's a part of the fundamental right. When we were making our constitution, we already had a lot of nations as examples, which adopted democratic and humanitarian concepts. So our founding fathers endeavored to formulate something which reflects multiple things like rights of the minority, the principle of UDHR, our struggle for independence, and whatnot. Therefore, while making the constitution, part III was discussed for 38 days. Part III exists with the same objective that our rights to freedoms should be protected against the state’s arbitrary invasion. So this means that the state’s actions should be judged on the basis of their impact on the rights and the freedoms of the people.

Basically, Article 13 deals with the principles relating to Fundamental Rights. The first thing that you should have clarity about it is that. Fundamental Rights have existed since the time our present constitution has existed i.e. 26th January 1950. Fundamental rights became operative from and on this date only. Article 13 (1) deals with Pre-constitutional laws. There were many different laws that were present before the constitution came into being, and remained in effect even after that. Article 13 provides that those laws (existing prior to the constitution) which are consistent with fundamental rights will remain valid. For example, there was an education Act of 1930 which had many clauses which dealt with subjects like the appointment of chairman, what will be the amount of fund that will be allocated, what will be the age group of the children. Among other things, there was this one clause that said kids from a certain caste shall not be admitted to the school. Now since 1950, this clause stands in contravention of the fundamental rights. While applying clause 1 in the same example, since this clause is against fundamental rights, it would become void.

What is Article 13- 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,—

(a) “law” includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;

(b) “laws in force” includes laws passed or made by a 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

This concept is related to the two doctrines, which are related to Article 13 i.e. Doctrine of Severability and the Doctrine of Eclipse. Let's see these doctrines.

Doctrine of Severability or Separability, Judicial Review Article 13

Doctrine is the doctrine of Severability or separability, which means to separate. In simple language, we have to use a filter for all pre-constitutional laws, i.e. if it respects fundamental rights or not. All the laws which pass successfully through this filter are valid. The laws which cannot pass have to be separated. This is the doctrine of severability. A very important case for the doctrine of severability is A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras. In this case, section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act was challenged. According to section 14, if any person is detained under this act, he cannot disclose grounds of detention in court. So section 14 was against the fundamental rights. If you apply the doctrine of severability here and filter out this Act, only section 14 of the act was not respecting fundamental rights. According to the doctrine of separation, if we filter out the Preventive Detention Act only section 14 is inconsistent with a fundamental right. So we will minus only this provision from the act, and the remaining act shall remain valid. Simply doctrine of separation means to filter out, to check all the acts. All those laws which respect fundamental rights shall be valid. All those which are inconsistent with fundamental rights shall become invalid.

Doctrine of Eclipse In Indian Constitution, Judicial Review Article 13

Doctrine of Eclipse meaning, is to hide. Let's understand it through a case. Eclipse means to shadow something or to hide. Like there are 3 kinds of volcanos, sleeping, active and dead, section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act was not a dead section. But just a sleeping section. Let's check this case to further understand how the doctrine of eclipse functions. Doctrine of eclipse cases- In the case of Bhikhaji v. State of M.P., Berar MV Act was challenged. There were certain sections in this Act that empowered the state government to transfer the ownership of all of the motor business to themselves. After 1950, all those provisions became violate Article 19. So what would happen now is, we will filter out the whole Act first, and remove all those sections which are inconsistent with fundamental rights. Then we will apply doctrine and eclipse, we will say that fundamental rights will prevail over these sections. Meaning that all these sections become inoperative. What happened next is that Article 19 was amended and the government was authorized to monopolise certain businesses. So these sections which were inoperative because of section 19, will now become active.

Case Law- State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills

There were a lot of twists in Article 13 (2) which were settled in State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills. In this case, certain labor welfare fund was challenged. It contained certain questions which were against fundamental rights. Now it was clear that after the constitution came into effect, the state did not have the power to pass a law which is against fundamental rights. The question, in this case, was that fundamental rights are available to citizens. Then, what about non-citizens and companies? In this case, the respondent was a company, who was not granted fundamental rights. In respect of that, would this act be valid or not? The supreme court said because the fundamental rights are not granted to companies, these sections will still, be operative for non-citizens.

भारतीय राज्यघटनेतील Doctrine of Eclipse आणि Doctrine of Severability

भारतीय राज्यघटना ही जगातील सर्वात मोठी लिखित राज्यघटना मानली जाते. या राज्यघटनेत नागरिकांचे मूलभूत अधिकार, शासनाची रचना, केंद्र-राज्य संबंध, न्यायपालिकेचे अधिकार याबाबत स्पष्ट तरतुदी करण्यात आल्या आहेत. परंतु, राज्यघटनेच्या कलमांची अंमलबजावणी करताना अनेक वेळा काही कायदे असंवैधानिक ठरतात. या पार्श्वभूमीवर भारताच्या सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने काही महत्त्वपूर्ण न्यायतत्त्वे (Doctrines) विकसित केली आहेत. त्यामध्ये Doctrine of Eclipse (ग्रहण तत्त्वज्ञान) आणि Doctrine of Severability (विभाज्यता तत्त्वज्ञान) यांना विशेष महत्त्व आहे.

हे दोन्ही तत्त्व न्यायालयीन पुनरावलोकनाच्या प्रक्रियेत तयार झालेले असून, राज्यघटनेतील कलमे आणि कायद्यांची वैधता तपासताना त्यांचा उपयोग केला जातो.

Doctrine of Eclipse म्हणजे काय?

Eclipse (ग्रहण) या संकल्पनेचा अर्थ आहे — एखादी गोष्ट अस्तित्वात असली तरी तिच्यावर ग्रहण लागले आहे, म्हणजे ती पूर्णपणे नष्ट होत नाही.

भारतीय राज्यघटनेत Doctrine of Eclipse चा उपयोग असा आहे की, जेव्हा कोणताही पूर्वीचा कायदा (Pre-Constitutional Law) राज्यघटनेतील मूलभूत अधिकारांशी विसंगत ठरतो, तेव्हा तो पूर्णपणे बाद न होता त्यावर "ग्रहण" लागते.

हा कायदा जिवंत असतो, पण तोपर्यंत अंमलात आणता येत नाही जोपर्यंत त्यातील विसंगती दूर होत नाही.

जर राज्यघटनेत दुरुस्ती करून त्या विसंगती दूर केल्या गेल्या, तर हा कायदा पुन्हा प्रभावी होऊ शकतो.

उदा.:- जर एखादा कायदा राज्यघटनेपूर्वी अस्तित्वात होता आणि तो नागरिकांच्या मूलभूत अधिकारांचे उल्लंघन करीत असेल, तर तो कायदा नागरिकांविरुद्ध वापरता येत नाही.

परंतु, राज्यघटनेत दुरुस्ती करून तो अधिकार मर्यादित केला गेला तर त्या कायद्यावरील "ग्रहण" नष्ट होते आणि कायदा पुन्हा लागू होतो.

Doctrine of Severability म्हणजे काय?

Severability (विभाज्यता) म्हणजे वेगळे करणे.

भारतीय राज्यघटनेत जर कोणताही कायदा किंवा अधिनियम पूर्णपणे असंवैधानिक नसून त्यातील काही कलमे किंवा तरतुदीच असंवैधानिक असतील, तर फक्त त्या असंवैधानिक तरतुदी रद्द केल्या जातात. उर्वरित कायदा मात्र लागू राहतो.

a) म्हणजे, जर कायद्याचा काही भाग राज्यघटनेशी विसंगत असेल, तर तो भाग वेगळा करून उर्वरित कायदा टिकवला जातो.

b) न्यायालय हे ठरवते की असंवैधानिक भाग वगळल्यानंतर उर्वरित कायदा स्वतंत्रपणे अंमलात आणता येतो का.

उदा. एखाद्या कायद्यामध्ये 10 कलमे असतील आणि त्यापैकी 2 कलमे मूलभूत अधिकारांचे उल्लंघन करीत असतील, तर फक्त ती 2 कलमे रद्द केली जातील. उर्वरित 8 कलमे टिकतील.

ऐतिहासिक पार्श्वभूमी आणि महत्वाच्या खटल्यांचा आढावा

1. Doctrine of Eclipse संबंधित खटले

a) Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955)

या खटल्यात सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाने सांगितले की, राज्यघटनेपूर्वी असलेला एखादा कायदा जर मूलभूत अधिकारांशी विसंगत असेल, तर त्यावर फक्त "ग्रहण" लागते. राज्यघटनेत दुरुस्ती केल्यानंतर हा कायदा पुन्हा प्रभावी होतो.

b) Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959)

न्यायालयाने स्पष्ट केले की राज्यघटनेनंतर (Post-Constitution) केलेले कायदे जर असंवैधानिक ठरले, तर ते "शून्य" (Void ab initio) ठरतात. त्यांना Eclipse Doctrine लागू होत नाही.

2. Doctrine of Severability संबंधित खटले

a) R.M.D.C v. Union of India (1957)

या खटल्यात न्यायालयाने सांगितले की, एखाद्या कायद्याचा काही भाग असंवैधानिक असल्यास तो वेगळा करता येतो आणि उर्वरित कायदा टिकतो.

b) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950)

या खटल्यात "Severability" तत्त्वाचा प्रथम वापर केला गेला. न्यायालयाने काही कलमे असंवैधानिक घोषित केली, पण संपूर्ण कायदा रद्द केला नाही.

Doctrine of Eclipse आणि Severability मधील फरक

मुद्दा	Doctrine of Eclipse	Doctrine of Severability
स्वरूप	पूर्वीच्या कायद्यांवर लागू	कोणत्याही कायद्याच्या काही भागांवर लागू
परिणाम	कायदा अस्तित्वात राहतो पण अंमलात येत नाही	असंवैधानिक भाग वेगळा करून उर्वरित कायदा अंमलात राहतो
उपयोजन	फक्त Pre-Constitution कायदे	Pre व Post Constitution दोन्ही कायद्यांवर
प्रतीकात्मक अर्थ	"ग्रहण लागणे"	"कापून वेगळे करणे"

दोन्ही तत्त्वांचे महत्व

a) संविधानाचे सर्वोच्चत्व राखणे – असंवैधानिक कायदे ताबडतोब बाद न करता त्यावर प्रक्रिया केली जाते.

b) कायद्यांचा सातत्यपूर्णपणा टिकवणे – पूर्ण कायदा बाद करण्याऐवजी त्याचा उपयुक्त भाग जपला जातो.

c) लोकशाहीची हमी – न्यायालयीन पुनरावलोकनातून नागरिकांचे हक्क संरक्षित होतात.

d) कायद्याचे लवचिकपण – काळानुरूप बदलांसाठी संधी उपलब्ध होते.

निष्कर्ष

भारतीय राज्यघटना ही नागरिकांच्या अधिकारांची आणि लोकशाही तत्त्वांची हमी देते. परंतु, प्रत्येक कायदा हा राज्यघटनेशी सुसंगत असणे आवश्यक आहे. न्यायालयांनी विकसित केलेली Doctrine of Eclipse आणि Doctrine of Severability ही तत्त्वे कायद्याच्या वैधतेचे परीक्षण करण्यासाठी अत्यंत महत्त्वाची आहेत.

a) Doctrine of Eclipse हे दाखवते की कायदे पूर्णपणे नष्ट होत नाहीत, तर ते तात्पुरते अप्रभावी राहतात.

b) Doctrine of Severability हे दाखवते की एखाद्या कायद्याचा दोषपूर्ण भाग वगळून बाकीचा भाग उपयुक्त राहू शकतो.

ही दोन्ही तत्त्वे राज्यघटनेच्या सर्वोच्चत्वाला मान्यता देतात आणि नागरिकांच्या मूलभूत अधिकारांचे रक्षण करतात.

What is Doctrine of Eclipse and Severability in the Constitution of India?