Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights


Introduction

We would like to inform you that in Indian constitution, this is specially added that “all laws that are inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights, shall be void” under Article 13. By this mean, you can understand the powers of fundamental rights and power of courts with respect to the Fundamental rights.

As a student of polity, it’s important for you to gain all the knowledge about Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights. If you are here for the same, then please read this article entirely.

So, let’s start-

Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights

Under the Indian Constitution, any law that is inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights is deemed to be void or invalid to the extent of such inconsistency. This means that if a law or provision of law violates any of the Fundamental Rights, it is not enforceable and can be struck down by the courts.

This provision ensures that the Fundamental Rights are not rendered meaningless by the existence of laws that contradict them. It also provides a mechanism for individuals to challenge laws that violate their Fundamental Rights.

It is important to note that the Constitution provides certain exceptions to this rule. For example, reasonable restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of certain Fundamental Rights in the interest of public order, morality, or the sovereignty and integrity of India.> However, such restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate to the interest being protected, and cannot be arbitrary or discriminatory.

Meaning of “Law” In Article 13

The term “law”, has been given a wide meaning or multiple connotations such as-

  • Article 13 of the Constitution deals with the concept of "laws inconsistent with or in derogation of Fundamental Rights".

  • The term "law" used in Article 13 includes all laws enacted by the Parliament, State Legislatures, and other authorities like executive orders, bylaws, and rules.

  • It also includes laws that were enacted before the adoption of the Constitution but are still in force.

  • The term "law" in Article 13 covers both written and unwritten laws, including customs and usages having the force of law.

  • The term "law" in Article 13 covers both written and unwritten laws, including customs and usages having the force of law.

  • The term "law" also includes laws that are in force in the territory of India, even if they were enacted by a foreign state or government before the adoption of the Constitution.

  • Any law that is inconsistent with or in derogation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency or derogation.

  • The term "law" in Article 13 does not include constitutional amendments made under Article 368, which cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of Fundamental Rights.

The term "law" in Article 13 has a broad and inclusive meaning, covering all kinds of laws, rules, and regulations that are inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Judicial Review for Fundamental Rights

Judicial review is the power of the courts to review and interpret the Constitution, and to strike down any law or action of the state that is inconsistent with it.

  • The power of judicial review is crucial in upholding the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

  • The Supreme Court and High Courts in India have the power of judicial review.

  • This power enables them to examine and determine the constitutional validity of any law or executive action that is brought before them.

  • If the court finds that such a law or action violates any Fundamental Right, it can strike it down as unconstitutional.

  • The power of judicial review for Fundamental Rights has been explicitly provided for in Article 32 of the Constitution, which grants individuals the right to move the Supreme Court directly in case of a violation of their Fundamental Rights.

  • Similarly, Article 226 grants High Courts the power to issue writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

  • The power of judicial review for Fundamental Rights has been used by the courts in several landmark cases to strike down laws and executive actions that violate the Fundamental Rights of citizens.

FAQ’s

Q1. What is meant by "laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights"?

Answer. "Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights" refers to any law or provision that violates the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India.

Q2. Can a law that is inconsistent with Fundamental Rights be enforced by the government?

Ans: Actually No! a law that is inconsistent with Fundamental Rights cannot be enforced by the government. Such a law is considered void to the extent of its inconsistency with Fundamental Rights.

Q3. How can a law that is inconsistent with Fundamental Rights be challenged?

Ans: A law that is inconsistent with Fundamental Rights can be challenged in a court of law. The Supreme Court and High Courts have the power of judicial review.

Updated on: 15-May-2023

663 Views

Kickstart Your Career

Get certified by completing the course

Get Started
Advertisements