Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay (AIR 1951 SC 128)

CASE_TITLE: Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay (AIR 1951 SC 128)

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Article 13, prospective effect, pre-Constitution law

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: retrospective effect, pending proceedings, Article 19(1)(a), Indian Press Emergency Powers Act, 1931

PUBLISH_DATE: 26-Mar-2024   |   AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi   |   LOCATION: India

Slug: keshavan-madhava-menon-v-the-state-of-bombay-air-1951-sc-128

The Court said Article 13(1) works forward, not backward. Old laws are not dead for the past. Cases started before 26 January 1950 do not stop. Speech rights under Article 19(1)(a) cannot undo a pre-Constitution offence.

• Are Sections 15 and 18 of the Indian Press Emergency Powers Act, 1931 inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 13?
• Do pending proceedings get vitiated after the Constitution came into force?
• Does Article 13(1) have any retrospective effect?

• Article 13(1): pre-Constitution laws, to the extent of inconsistency with Part III, are void from commencement, not for the past.
• Prospective operation: A statute is prospective unless clearly made retrospective.
• Article 19(1)(a): freedom of speech right exists only after the Constitution began.
• General Clauses Act (interpretive): repeal/voiding does not, by itself, reopen concluded actions unless specified.

Held: Appeal dismissed. Article 13(1) has no retrospective effect. Pre-Constitution prosecutions continue.

• Prospective only: Article 13(1) limits future operation of inconsistent laws from the Constitution’s start date.
• Not void ab initio: Such laws are not dead for the past; they are void only to the extent of future inconsistency.
• No fundamental right then: In 1949, the Petitioner had no Article 19(1)(a) protection.

Core Rule: Article 13(1) is prospective. It curbs the use of inconsistent pre-Constitution laws after 26-01-1950, but it does not nullify past offences or pending cases.

Effect: Proceedings begun before the Constitution are not automatically vitiated.

• Defines how old laws interact with new Fundamental Rights.
• Prevents retroactive invalidation of prosecutions without explicit mandate.
• Foundation for later Article 13 jurisprudence in exams and practice.

1. Article 13(1) = Prospective: No automatic reopening of past actions.
2. Void ≠ Ab initio: Only to the extent of future inconsistency.
3. Pending cases continue: Unless a clear contrary command exists.
4. Pre-1950 acts: Fundamental rights cannot be used as defence.

Mnemonic: “P-V-P” → Prospective • Void (not past) • Proceedings continue.

• 1. Prospective: Rights apply forward from 26-01-1950.
• 2. Void (not past): Inconsistency ends future use, not past acts.
• 3. Proceedings continue: Pre-Constitution cases do not collapse.

Issue: Do Article 13(1) and Article 19(1)(a) wipe out a pre-1950 prosecution under the 1931 Act?

Rule: Article 13(1) is prospective; laws inconsistent with Part III are void from commencement, not ab initio.

Application: The pamphlet was published in 1949. No fundamental rights then. Hence, the prosecution, already launched, stands.

Conclusion: Appeal dismissed. Proceedings continue. Article 13(1) is not retrospective.

Prospective Effect

A rule applies from a start date forward, not to past events.

Void to the Extent

Only the inconsistent part loses force after the Constitution begins.

Pending Proceedings

Cases already filed and not finished in court.