Supreme Court Clarifies: Laws Deemed Unconstitutional Are Void from Inception
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has reinforced that any law found to infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution is rendered unenforceable from its very date of enactment.
The apex court, while examining its 2014 judgment that declared Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 unconstitutional, stated,
“It is crystal clear that once a law is declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Part III of the Constitution, then it would be held to be void ab initio, stillborn, unenforceable and non est in view of Article 13(2) of the Constitution and its interpretation by authoritative pronouncements.”
The case’s genesis can be traced back to an arrest made under the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act, 1946, without prior sanction. This led to a legal challenge based on the violation of Section 6A, which required the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to obtain government sanction before investigating an officer of the rank of joint secretary and above in corruption cases. The Delhi High Court, in its ruling, directed the CBI to seek the central government’s approval for reinvestigation. This decision was subsequently challenged by the CBI in the Supreme Court in 2007. However, while the case was under deliberation, Section 6A was declared unconstitutional in the Subramanian Swamy case (2014). The application of this ruling to ongoing cases remained ambiguous, leading to the current constitution bench’s clarification.
The bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath, and JK Maheshwari, delved deep into the meaning of ‘void’ and the distinctions between clauses (1) and (2) of Article 13, which address pre and post-Constitution laws respectively. The court reiterated that post-Constitution laws found to be in contravention with Part III provisions would be null from their very inception.
Supporting its stance, the court cited several judgments, including Mahendra Lal Jaini (1963) and a recent judgment led by former Supreme Court judge L Nageswara Rao. The latter held that a post-Constitution statute declared unconstitutional would be void ab initio.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the principle that laws found to be unconstitutional are rendered void from their very beginning, emphasizing the sanctity of fundamental rights.
