Article 13 of the Constitution of India acts as the ultimate constitutional sentinel, guaranteeing the supremacy of Fundamental Rights (Part III). It vests the higher judiciary with the explicit power of judicial review to evaluate the validity of statutory enactments. Under Article 13, any law that is inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights is declared void to the extent of such inconsistency.

Concurring opinion of M. Hidayatullah, J. in I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. “Fundamental Rights are outside the amendatory process if the amendment seeks to abridge or take away any of the rights.”

Relevant Doctrines

 “The Doctrine of Severability” was stated in the landmark case of R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India, when a portion of a statute violates Part III, the entire Act is not struck down if the offending provision can be safely severed from the valid remainder. Additionally, if the valid and invalid parts are so inextricably interwoven that they cannot be separated, the entire statute must be declared void.

 “The Doctrine of Waver” was stated in the landmark case of Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax. This doctrine evaluates whether a citizen can voluntarily relinquish their fundamental rights. Further, the Supreme Court unequivocally ruled that the Doctrine of Waiver does not apply to the Indian Constitution. Fundamental rights are not merely individual privileges but are deeply rooted in public policy; therefore, a citizen cannot waive them away by private agreement.

 “The Doctrine of ‘Prospective Overruling” was mentioned in the landmark case I.C. Golak Nath and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors.,  is a modern doctrine suitable for a fast-moving society. It does not do away with the doctrine of state decision but confines it to past transactions.

 Leading precedents

 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)

This is the most crucial precedent tied to Article 13. The Supreme Court ruled that a Constitutional Amendment passed under Article 368 does not fall under the definition of ordinary “law” in Article 13(2). Therefore, amendments cannot be struck down using Article 13. However, the Court created a master check: amendments can still be struck down if they violate the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution.

 Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992)

The Supreme Court applied the Doctrine of Severability to the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law). The Court found Paragraph 7 of the Schedule unconstitutional because it completely barred judicial review without proper state ratification. Instead of striking down the whole Tenth Schedule, the Court severed only Paragraph 7, keeping the rest of the anti-defection law completely alive and valid.