Published on: 19 November 2022 at 08:30 IST
Court – Supreme Court of India
Citation – Union of India v/s Col. L.S.N. Murthy (2012) 1 SCC 718
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that word “Law” has been defined for the purpose of Article 13 to include any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law.
Hence, it is held that it is essential to establish whether any order or notification of the Government which attempts to take away or abridge the fundamental rights as conferred by the Constitution of India.
Para – 15
In clause (3)(a) of Article 13 of the Constitution, the word “law” has been defined for the purpose of Article 13 to include any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law. Clause (3)(a) of Article 13 of the Constitution therefore makes it clear that not only law made by the legislature but also an order or notification which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution would be void.
Thus, clause (3)(a) of Article 13 of the Constitution is relevant, where an order or notification of the Government attempts to take away or abridge the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and this provision of the Constitution has no relevance in deciding a question whether an agreement is void and is not enforceable in law.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
Key Words – Law, Fundamental Rights, Legislature, Agreeement.