Article 13 of the Indian Constitution serves as the guardian of Fundamental Rights by rendering any 'law' inconsistent with Part III void. Its deliberately expansive definition of 'law' is central to this protective function.
Article 13(3)(a) defines 'law' to include any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom, or usage having the force of law in the territory of India. This definition is intentionally broad, ensuring no state action escapes constitutional scrutiny merely by adopting a non-legislative form.
The explicit inclusion of 'custom or usage having the force of law' is significant. Practices such as caste-based exclusions or gender-discriminatory personal law customs, if they carry legal force, are equally subject to Fundamental Rights scrutiny. 'Y' is therefore correct — custom is expressly covered under Article 13.
Article 13(1) renders pre-constitutional laws void to the extent of inconsistency with Part III, while Article 13(2) prohibits the State from making any new law that abridges Fundamental Rights. Both provisions apply to the full spectrum of 'law' as defined, including delegated legislation and executive orders.
Courts have consistently held that even subordinate legislation and executive instructions can be struck down under Article 13. The doctrine of severability allows courts to void only the offending portion, preserving the remainder — reinforcing the practical reach of Article 13's definition.
The comprehensive definition of 'law' under Article 13 reflects constitutional intent to make Fundamental Rights genuinely enforceable against all forms of state power, including entrenched customs — validating 'Y's position entirely over 'X's incomplete understanding.
GS Answer Coach grades your Mains answer on structure, substance, and conclusion — in under a minute.
Essay Coach · GS Answer Coach · Cutoff Planner · 500+ Mains PYQs — free to sign up.