onae. 7) FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS 8 stu BS Nayak! in a sev AR, Antulay_V, R.S.Nayat:' in a seven Judge Bench decision held—The Court cannot pas a.direction which would be violative of fundamental rights of ecigens Thus it cane said at the expression “Stat""as Jetmned Tn ATUle T2 of the ‘Constitution incTodes judiciary also, = Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Ri 3 it ights (Article 13)—Articie 13 (1) declares that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall be void to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Clause (2) ofthis article provides that the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights conferred by Part TI of the Constitution; and any law made in contravention of fundamental rights shall, to the extent of contravention, be void. Clause (3) of this article gives the term ‘law’ a very broad connotation which includes any ordinance, order, by-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having the force of law. Thus, not only the legislative enactment, but anything mentioned hereinbefore ccan be challenged as infringing a fundamental right. Objective of Article 13(2)—The main objective of Article 13 is to secure the pparamountcy of the Constitution especially with regard to fundamental rights? Power of Judicial Review—Article 13 in fact provides for the ‘judicial review" of all legislations in India, past as well as future. This power has been conferred on the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India (Article 226, Article 32) which can declare a law unconstitutional if itis inconsistent with any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. Pre-Constitution Laws.—According to clause (1) of Article 13, all pre- Constitution or existing laws, Le. the laws which were in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution shall be void to the extent to which they are ‘inconsistent with fundamental rights from the date of the commencement of the Constitution. Article 13 not retrospective in effect—Article 13 (1) is prospective in nature. All pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights will become void only after the commencement of the Constitution, They are not void ab initio, Such inconsistent law is not wiped out so far asthe past Acts are concerned. A declaration of invalidity by the Courts will, however, be necessary to make the laws invalid. The ‘Supreme Court in Keshavan Madhavan Menon v. State of Bombay,> observed : “There is ‘no fundamental right that a person shall not be prosecuted and punished for an offence committed before the Constitution came into force. So far as the past Acts are concerned, the law exists notwithstanding that it does not exist with respect to the future exercise of the Fundamental Rights.” In that case, a prosecution proceeding was started against the petitioner under the Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 in respect of a pamphlet published in 1949. The present Constitution came into force during the pendency of the proceeding in the Court, ‘The appellant contended that the Act was inconsistent with the fundamental rights ‘conferred by Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution hence void, and the proceeding against him could not be continued. The Supreme Court held—Article 13 (1), could not apply to his case as the offence was committed before the present Constitution came into force and 1. AUR 1988 $c 1531 Brae 2, Renu y. Disuic and Session Judge, Tis Hazai, AIR 3, AIR 1951 $C 128 : Rabindra Nath v, Union of India, AIR 1970 $C 470.doctrine of that eas, Section care opera the inconsistency of the ity 208) a gam inatory procedure in pre-Const procedure laid down by 8 pre-e Doctrine of Severeil, When prt of he saute is declared uncosttion) question arises wheter the whole ofthe state is tobe declared vol or oly tat hich is unconsttional shouldbe declared oid. To resolve this problen + the doctrine of severally or separb minus pra? which provides he Speaker's deesion #3 constr. Paa 7 that provides tha 10 Set iam a, St PAR 5 91torn I and smendment ofthe Co fom rot to apply 10 8 po the Supreme Cour held fundamen buy Labour Welfre Fund A company, bad calenged te Cou bel that the Bo