Art 12–13: State & laws inconsistent with FRs
P-3.1.1Core
0/5 stages complete · 0% coverage
Exam Strategy
Articles 12–13 form the constitutional backbone for FR enforcement. UPSC tests definition of 'State' under Art 12, doctrine of ultra vires under Art 13, and ability to identify which laws can be challenged. Common pitfall: confusing private action immunity with State definition; candidates often miss that bodies exercising sovereign functions qualify as State.
High-yield hooks
1
Art 12: 'State' includes government bodies exercising sovereign functions
2
Art 13: Laws inconsistent with FRs are void to the extent of inconsistency
3
Pre-Constitutional laws challengeable only if repugnant to FRs
4
Private bodies cannot violate FRs; only State action is justiciable
5
Doctrine of severability: only repugnant part struck down, not entire law
Coverage — 0/8 done
0%
SCANPOLITY/FUNDAMENTAL-RIGHTSPOLITY/CONSTITUTIONAL-REVIEWPOLITY/STATE-DEFINITION