VoxJuris
Home › Acts › Constitution › Part III › Article 13

Constitution of India · Part III: Fundamental Rights · General

Article 13: Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights

In plain words

Any law in force before the Constitution began is void to the extent it is inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights. The State cannot make any law that takes away or abridges those rights, and any law that does so is void to that extent.

  • "Law" includes Ordinances, orders, bye-laws, rules, regulations, notifications, and customs or usages having the force of law.
  • This article does not apply to amendments of the Constitution made under article 368.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓

Official text

(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or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.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.]

Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the official text of the Constitution of India. As amended up to the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023. Text as on 10 September 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.

Understanding this article

Article 13 is the enforcement clause of Part III. Laws in force before the Constitution are void to the extent they are inconsistent with fundamental rights, and the State cannot make new laws that take away or abridge them. It is the textual foundation of judicial review of legislation.

Two clauses, two effects

  • Clause (1): pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Part III become void to that extent.
  • Clause (2): post-constitutional laws that take away or abridge fundamental rights are void from the start, to the extent of contravention.

Doctrine of eclipse

A pre-constitutional law inconsistent with a fundamental right is not wiped out; it is eclipsed, remaining dormant. If the fundamental right is later amended to remove the inconsistency, the law revives. A law rendered inoperative does not revive automatically in other situations unless re-enacted.

Doctrine of severability

Only the offending part of a law is void, if it can be separated from the rest and the remainder can stand on its own as the legislature would have intended. If the good and bad are inseparable, the whole falls.

Waiver

Fundamental rights cannot be waived by an individual, because they are not merely for the individual's benefit but reflect public policy.

Amendments are not law under Article 13

Clause (4), inserted in 1971, and Article 368(3) say that constitutional amendments are not law for this article. The validity of amendments is tested instead under the basic structure doctrine.

Key Supreme Court rulings

  • Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1955 SC 781

    Laid down the doctrine of eclipse: a law inconsistent with fundamental rights is not obliterated but remains dormant, and revives if the inconsistency is removed by amending the fundamental right.

Common mistakes

  • Treating a pre-constitutional law as wiped off the statute book.
  • Testing a constitutional amendment under Article 13 instead of the basic structure doctrine.

Read with: Article 12 Constitution, Article 368 Constitution, Article 32 Constitution

Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.

Supreme Court judgments citing the article 13