Article 13 of the Indian Constitution is the protective shield that gives fundamental rights real teeth. Without it, Part III would be a list of promises. With it, every law in India must answer to the courts whenever it bumps against a fundamental right. The article does two things at once: it defines what counts as “law” for the purposes of constitutional scrutiny, and it declares that any law inconsistent with fundamental rights is void to the extent of that inconsistency.
The framers placed Article 13 at the gateway of Part III deliberately. Pre-constitutional statutes from British India, post-1950 enactments, executive orders, bye-laws, regulations, and even unwritten customs all fall under its sweep. The Supreme Court has used it to strike down portions of statutes, freeze others, and revive expired laws — all through doctrines that have evolved around this single article.
What “Law” Includes Under Article 13
Article 13(3)(a) gives an inclusive definition of “law.” It expressly covers ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, customs, and usages having the force of law in the territory of India. This wide net is intentional. The framers wanted no executive instrument or local custom to escape fundamental-rights review by hiding behind a technical label.
Ordinances and executive instruments
An ordinance promulgated by the President under Article 123 or by a Governor under Article 213 is “law” for Article 13 purposes. So is an order issued under any statute, a rule framed by a ministry, a regulation passed by a statutory body, or a notification published in the gazette. If it carries the force of law and binds citizens, it is reviewable.
Customs and usages
A custom or usage having the force of law also qualifies. This is significant for personal laws, village-level practices, and trade customs. If a custom violates a fundamental right — say, by discriminating on the basis of sex — it can be struck down even though no statute formally backs it.
What Article 13 does not cover
Constitutional amendments are not “law” within Article 13 (settled after Kesavananda Bharati, 1973, though the position evolved through Sankari Prasad and Golaknath first). Administrative instructions that do not have the force of law, and questions of personal law not codified by statute, sit in a contested zone the courts handle case by case.
Article 13(1) and 13(2): Pre and Post-Constitutional Laws
Article 13(1) declares that all pre-constitutional laws — those in force in India immediately before 26 January 1950 — are void to the extent of their inconsistency with fundamental rights. The voidness operates prospectively from the date the Constitution came into force.
Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any law that takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III. Any such law shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
The distinction matters. Pre-constitutional laws are not wiped out — they are only paralysed to the extent they clash with fundamental rights. Post-constitutional laws that clash with Part III are stillborn from the moment of enactment.
Doctrine of Severability
The Doctrine of Severability flows from the phrase “to the extent of such inconsistency” in Article 13. If only a part of a statute violates a fundamental right, courts strike down only that offending part — provided the remainder can stand on its own.
The test the Supreme Court has applied (R.M.D.C. v. Union of India, 1957) examines whether the valid and invalid portions are so inextricably mixed that they cannot be separated, whether the legislature would have enacted the valid part alone, and whether what remains makes coherent sense. If the answer to severability is yes, the statute survives in mutilated form. If the answer is no, the entire statute falls.
This is why striking down a single sub-section or proviso is common in Indian constitutional law. The rest of the act continues to operate.
Doctrine of Eclipse
The Doctrine of Eclipse applies specifically to pre-constitutional laws. A law inconsistent with fundamental rights is not dead — it is eclipsed. It remains on the statute book but is unenforceable against citizens whose rights are violated.
If the Constitution is later amended to remove the inconsistency, or if the fundamental right itself is narrowed, the eclipse lifts and the law revives. The classic illustration is Bhikaji Narain Dhakeshwar v. State of M.P. (1955), where a pre-constitutional law restricting motor transport business was eclipsed by Article 19(1)(g). After the First Amendment expanded permissible state restrictions, the eclipse lifted and the law became enforceable again.
The doctrine generally does not apply to post-constitutional laws. A post-constitutional law that violates fundamental rights is void ab initio and cannot revive through subsequent amendment.
Article 13(4) and Constitutional Amendments
Article 13(4) was inserted by the 24th Amendment (1971) to clarify that “law” in Article 13 does not include a constitutional amendment under Article 368. This was the legislative response to the Golaknath ruling (1967), which had held amendments to be “law” subject to Article 13.
The Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) accepted that amendments are not “law” for Article 13 but carved out the basic structure doctrine — Parliament cannot amend the Constitution to destroy its basic features. So while Article 13 itself does not bind constitutional amendments, the basic structure doctrine does.
For deeper context on how amendments work, see the 42nd Amendment of Indian Constitution and 44th Amendment of Indian Constitution explainers.
Why Article 13 Matters in Practice
Article 13 is the operational hinge of judicial review in India. Without it, courts would have no textual basis to strike down legislation. With it, every law — old or new, statutory or customary — is held to the standard of Part III. The doctrines of severability and eclipse let courts make surgical interventions rather than sweeping rejections, keeping statute books functional while protecting individual rights.
For students of Indian polity, Article 13 is best understood alongside the fundamental rights and articles framework, because the two are inseparable.
FAQs
What does Article 13 of the Indian Constitution say?
Article 13 declares that any law inconsistent with fundamental rights is void to the extent of the inconsistency, and prohibits the State from making any law that takes away or abridges fundamental rights.
What is included in the definition of law under Article 13?
The definition includes ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, customs, and usages having the force of law in India.
Does Article 13 apply to constitutional amendments?
No. After the 24th Amendment of 1971 inserted Article 13(4), constitutional amendments under Article 368 are excluded from the meaning of “law” under Article 13.
What is the Doctrine of Severability?
It allows courts to strike down only the unconstitutional portion of a statute, leaving the rest of the law in force, provided the valid and invalid parts can be separated and the surviving portion makes sense on its own.
What is the Doctrine of Eclipse?
A pre-constitutional law inconsistent with fundamental rights is eclipsed and unenforceable, but is not dead. If the inconsistency is later removed by amendment, the eclipse lifts and the law revives.
Does the Doctrine of Eclipse apply to post-constitutional laws?
Generally no. A post-constitutional law that violates fundamental rights is void from inception and cannot revive through subsequent amendment.
What is the difference between Article 13(1) and Article 13(2)?
Article 13(1) deals with pre-constitutional laws and renders them void to the extent of inconsistency with fundamental rights. Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any new law that contravenes Part III.
Can a custom be struck down under Article 13?
Yes. Any custom or usage having the force of law that violates a fundamental right can be declared void under Article 13.
Tell Google you want more of this.
Add Anantam IAS as a preferred sourceOne tap, and this site shows up more often in your own Top Stories, AI Overviews and AI Mode. Remove it any time.
