Prospective operation of Article 13(1): pre-Constitution laws remained applicable to pending prosecutions for past conduct.

Article 13(1) was construed as prospective: pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with Part III became void only to the extent of inconsistency and from the Constitution's commencement, without extinguishing liabilities already incurred for past acts. On that reasoning, pending prosecutions under such laws could continue because the provision did not operate retrospectively or repeal the law ab initio, and the principle reflected in section 6 of the General Clauses Act supported continuation of proceedings based on pre-Constitution conduct. A dissenting view held that once the inconsistent law became inoperative, pending proceedings under it could not continue after the Constitution came into force.

---

---

Issues: Whether article 13(1) of the Constitution of India rendered void and inoperative, for all purposes including pending prosecutions, pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with Part III; and whether proceedings already instituted under such laws could continue after the Constitution came into force.

Analysis: The majority held that article 13(1) is prospective in operation. It declares existing laws inconsistent with Part III void only to the extent of inconsistency and only with effect from the commencement of the Constitution; it does not operate retrospectively to destroy liabilities already incurred or proceedings already commenced under the law as it stood when the act was done. The Court also held that the language of article 13(1) does not require a saving clause because it does not repeal the law ab initio, and that the principle underlying section 6 of the General Clauses Act supports the continuance of pending proceedings where the pre-Constitution law remains relevant to past acts.

Conclusion: Pending prosecutions under a pre-Constitution law were held not to be terminated merely because the law became void to the extent of inconsistency with fundamental rights after the Constitution commenced.

Dissenting Opinion: Fazl Ali J., with whom Mukherjea J. agreed, held that a law declared void under article 13(1) could not be applied to pending proceedings after the Constitution came into force. In that view, proceedings under the impugned statute could not continue once the Constitution rendered the inconsistent provisions inoperative.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India is prospective and does not abate pending prosecutions for acts committed before the Constitution commenced, even if the underlying pre-Constitution law is inconsistent with fundamental rights.

---