Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay
AIR 1951 SC 128: 1951 SCR 228
Case Summary
Facts of the Case:
Keshavan Madhava Menon, the secretary of the People's Publishing House Ltd. in Bombay, was arrested on December 9, 1949, for publishing a pamphlet titled "Railway Mazdoorun Ke Khilaf Nai Sazish." He was prosecuted under Section 18(1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, for publishing a news-sheet without proper authorization. While the trial was ongoing, the Constitution of India came into effect on January 26, 1950. Menon argued that certain sections of the 1931 Act were inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and thus became void under Article 13(1). He petitioned the Bombay High Court to declare the relevant sections of the law unconstitutional and dismiss his case. However, the High Court ruled against him, stating that the new Constitution did not affect prosecutions already underway. Menon appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues Raised:
Whether Sections 15(1) and 18(1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, were inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?
If these sections were inconsistent, could the prosecution against Menon, which began before the Constitution came into force, still continue?
Relevant Articles Used:
Article 13(1): Declares that all existing laws inconsistent with fundamental rights shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency.
Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Article 367: Makes the General Clauses Act applicable for interpreting the Constitution.
Article 372(2): Gives the President the power to modify or repeal pre-constitutional laws.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision, ruling that Menon’s prosecution could continue. It provided the following key explanations:
Non-Retrospective Effect of Article 13(1): Article 13(1) does not operate retrospectively. This means it does not invalidate past actions done under laws that later became inconsistent with the Constitution. Fundamental rights under the Constitution only came into effect on January 26, 1950, so any law that was valid before that date remains applicable for past events.
Void to the Extent of Inconsistency: The Court clarified that Article 13(1) does not completely erase pre-constitutional laws. Instead, it only renders them inapplicable for future cases where they contradict fundamental rights. For example, while the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, may be unconstitutional for future applications, it still remains valid for events that occurred before the Constitution came into effect.
Comparison with Temporary Laws: The Court distinguished this situation from cases where temporary laws expire. When a temporary law ends, all pending cases under it also end unless a saving provision is included. However, Article 13(1) does not completely repeal existing laws but only restricts their future use.
Impact on Pending Cases: Since Menon committed the alleged offense before the Constitution came into force, the Court ruled that he could still be prosecuted under the pre-Constitution law. The fact that the law became inconsistent with the new Constitution did not invalidate the prosecution for past actions.
Comments