Aspirant Academy
ENHI

RAS question

Article 13(2) of the Constitution states that the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights. Such a law shall be:

Correct answer: (D) Void to the extent of contravention.

A law made by the State in contravention of Fundamental Rights under Part III is void to the extent of that contravention under Article 13(2).

  1. (A)

    Voidable at the option of the affected party

  2. (B)

    Valid until struck down by Supreme Court

  3. (C)

    Completely void ab initio

  4. (D)

    Void to the extent of contravention

Explanation

Article 13(2) is precise about both the prohibition and the consequence. It says the State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III, and that any law made in contravention of this clause shall be void to the extent of the contravention. The phrase "to the extent" is the key. It does not automatically destroy the entire statute if only one part violates Fundamental Rights; the offending part is void, while the rest may survive. That is why option D best captures the constitutional rule. The provision is also the basis for judicial review of laws that conflict with Fundamental Rights.

Why the other options are wrong

  • (A) Article 13(2) does not make the law merely voidable at the affected party's option; it makes the contravening part void.
  • (B) The provision does not say such a law remains valid until the Supreme Court strikes it down; it declares a contravening law void to the extent of the contravention.
  • (C) The law is not completely void ab initio in every case, because Article 13(2) limits invalidity to the extent of the inconsistency or contravention.

Concept

This tests Fundamental Rights, Article 13, and judicial review. It recurs in RAS because questions often turn on exact constitutional phrases such as "to the extent of the contravention" rather than broad summaries.

Source

Related questions