LANDMARK CASE
Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay
AIR 1951 SC 128 · Supreme Court of India · Constitutional law
At a glance
- Citation: AIR 1951 SC 128
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Area of law: Constitutional law
- In one line: No. Article 13(1) is not retrospective, so past acts can still be prosecuted.
1 Facts
A prosecution under a pre Constitution press law was pending when the Constitution began.
2 Issue
Do pending prosecutions fail if the law is inconsistent with fundamental rights?
3 What the court decided
No. Article 13(1) is not retrospective, so past acts can still be prosecuted.
4 Why it matters
Early case on the effect of Article 13.
5 Think about it
What does 'void to the extent of inconsistency' mean?
6 Analyse it yourself
Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.
7 More cases on Constitutional law
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
- ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521
- Air India v. Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335
- Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) 1 SCC 722
- Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India (2008) 3 SCC 1
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637
All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz
← Kesavananda Bharati v. State of KeralaKharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh →
A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.