Keshavan Madhava Menon v State of Bombay

Facts

• The appellant had been prosecuted before the commencement of the Constitution under a pre-Constitution law restricting publication of certain material
• The prosecution was still pending when the Constitution came into force
• After the Constitution commenced, the appellant argued that the law was inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and therefore void, and that the pending prosecution should be quashed

Issue

1. Whether Article 13(1) invalidates a pre-Constitution law retrospectively, so as to nullify a prosecution validly initiated and still pending under that law at the time the Constitution came into force.

Held

• Article 13(1) declares pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with fundamental rights to be void, but this voidness operates only prospectively, from the date the Constitution came into effect
• The law was validly in force at the time the prosecution was initiated; Article 13(1) does not wipe out the law retrospectively so as to affect a prosecution that had already commenced under valid law
• Article 13(1) is concerned only with the law's future operation, not with unwinding validly completed or pending actions taken before the Constitution began

Ratio Decidendi

The declaration of voidness under Article 13(1) operates prospectively from the date of the Constitution's commencement; it does not retroactively invalidate actions, prosecutions, or liabilities validly undertaken under a law before that date, even if the law becomes inconsistent with fundamental rights thereafter.