Home The Constitution Part III Article 13

Art. 13 Part III: Fundamental Rights

Laws Inconsistent With Fundamental Rights

Exact text — Constitution of India

(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or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.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. [Added by the 24th Amendment, 1971]

In Plain English

What this Article actually means

This is the Article that gives Indian courts the power of judicial review over legislation. Clause (1) voided any pre-1950 law that conflicted with Fundamental Rights; clause (2) is forward-looking — it bars Parliament or a State Legislature from making ANY law that takes away or reduces a Fundamental Right, and automatically voids any law that tries. Clause (4), added in 1971, clarified that a constitutional amendment itself isn't 'law' for this purpose — otherwise Article 13 would make it impossible to ever amend Part III at all, which the Supreme Court's basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati) later balanced against.

Why This Matters To You

How it shows up in everyday life

This is the constitutional foundation for why a court can strike down a statute as 'unconstitutional' — it's not a vague power judges invented, it's spelled out right here. Whenever a court says a law is 'void' or 'ultra vires the Constitution', Article 13 is almost always the underlying authority.

Landmark Cases

How courts have interpreted this Article

Shreya Singhal v. Union of IndiaAIR 2015 SC 1523 — A textbook application of Article 13(2) — Section 66A of the IT Act was declared void because it violated Article 19(1)(a) and wasn't saved by any reasonable restriction. Verify this case

Read alongside this one

Art. 32 — Right to Constitutional Remedies Art. 368 — Amendment of the Constitution

Frequently Asked

Quick answers about Article 13

Can a constitutional amendment itself be struck down under Article 13?

Not under Article 13 directly (clause 4 exempts amendments), but the Supreme Court can still strike down an amendment if it violates the Constitution's 'basic structure' — a separate doctrine from Kesavananda Bharati, not this Article.

What counts as 'law' for Article 13's purposes?

Very broadly — not just Acts of Parliament, but ordinances, rules, regulations, notifications, and even customs or usages that have the force of law.

← PreviousArticle 12: Definition of 'the State'Next →Article 14: Equality Before Law

The text above reproduces Article 13 of the Constitution of India as amended to date, for general educational reference. It is public-domain legislative text, but we recommend cross-checking the authoritative version at legislative.gov.in or india.gov.in before relying on it for a legal matter. The explanation, examples and FAQs are general information, not legal advice — consult a qualified advocate for guidance on your specific situation.