Skip to main content

Fundamental Rights Justiciability

 Fundamental Rights Justiciability

By: Anjali Tiwari

Fundamental rights justiciability refers to the ability to enforce the rights set forth in Part III of

the Indian Constitution. In the event that one of one's fundamental rights is violated, one might

file a complaint with the High Court or Supreme Court.

Fundamental rights are crucial because they protect people's interests, and as a result, they are

regarded as the country's backbone. Article 13 discusses the justiciability of fundamental rights;

any law that violates a fundamental right can be declared unconstitutional. "Article 13 provides

for judicial scrutiny" of all Indian laws, both current and future. It does not only discuss laws, but

also ordinances, orders, rules, notifications, and so on.

The Indian constitution is the most powerful in the world. It means 'Supreme of the Constitution,'

which means that all legislation must be in conformity with the constitution's requirements.

Parliament must act in exact accordance with the constitution's stated mandates while passing

legislation. In other words, Article 13 of the constitution establishes the constitution's supremacy.

Fundamental rights are the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution,

which no one can change. The supremacy of the Indian Constitution is upheld by Article 13 of

the Indian Constitution, which also serves as a model for judicial review.

Meaning and Applicability

Article 13 states that no state legislature or parliament can pass legislation that violates basic

rights. Laws that infringe on fundamental rights are null and void. Discuss pre-constitutional and

post-constitutional laws as well.

Article 13(1) refers to pre-constitutional laws, stating that all laws in existence in India

immediately prior to the start of the constitution are void to the extent that they are incompatible

with Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Indian Constitution.

Article 13(2) discusses post-constitutional legislation.

Article 13(2) of the Indian constitution forbids the state from enacting any law that abridges the

rights provided by Part III. If a state passes such a law, it is null and void.

Article 13: Introduction


"Laws inconsistent of Fundamental Rights are void," says Article 13 of the Indian constitution.

13(1) – Insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this article, all laws in force in the

territory of India immediately before the commencement of this constitution will be void to the

extent of such contradiction.

13(20) – The state shall not pass any law that deprives or restricts the rights granted by this Part,

and any law passed in violation of this clause shall be void to the degree of the violation.

13(3) – Unless the context dictates differently, in this article-

1. "Laws" refers to any ordinance, order, bye-laws, rule, regulation, notification, custom, or

usage that has legal force in India.

2. Laws passed or made by the legislature in the territory of India prior to the commencement of

this constitution that have not been replaced are included in "laws in force,".

13(4) – This article does not apply to any change to the constitution adopted pursuant to Article

368.

Because the term "law" is so broad, it also covers subordinate legislation, rules, regulations, and

orders issued by the government. A simple executive or administrative order, on the other hand,

would not be covered by the legislation. Similarly, legislative notices are enforceable, whereas

executive notifications are not. As a result, any ordinance, order, by-law, rule, regulation,

notification, custom, or usage, not only enacted law or legislation, but also any ordinance, order,

by-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom, or usage, may be used.

Bhau Ram VS. Baij Nath (AIR 1962 SC 1476)

The Supreme Court held that personal laws such as Hindu, Muslim, and Christian law are

excluded from the definition of 'law' for the purposes of Article 13 because the term 'personal

law' is not used in Article 13 despite being included in item 5 of the concurrent List-List III of

Schedule VII of the constitution. It has been decided that personal laws are not covered by

Article 13(1).

Edward Mills VS. Ajmer (AIR 1955 SC 25)

The Supreme Court declared that the terms "law in force" and "exciting law" had the same

meaning.


Reference:

1) Bhau Ram VS. Baij Nath, AIR 1962 SC 1476

2) Edward Mills VS. Ajmer (AIR 1955 SC 25)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree