Article 13 — Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights

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or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.

Source: Constitution of India, as published by the Ministry of Law and Justice.

Article 13 was the battleground for the most consequential constitutional debate of the first two decades: whether Parliament could amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368. In Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965), the Supreme Court held that constitutional amendments were not 'law' under Article 13(2) and so Parliament could curtail FRs. In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab (1967), the Court reversed this, holding Parliament could not amend Part III at all. Parliament responded by passing the 24th Amendment (1971). Kesavananda Bharati (1973) finally settled the issue: Parliament can amend FRs but cannot destroy the 'basic structure' of the Constitution.

• Article 12
• Article 14
• Article 21
• Article 368

Last reviewed: 1 July 2026