Article 13(2)

No

Are you sure???????????

refer kesavananda bharti V State of Kerla n also refer Golaknath V state of Punjab... U may get ur confusion clear here. Judicial activism is also affects the legislatures also.

Article 13 Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights

(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
".........but it was disproved in the court."

what you want to say by the word 'disproved'?

please find the meaning of the following words from a law dictionary.

1) laws inconsistent.

2) contravention.

Please get the clear picture of my topic " if there is a law which violates  Part III of the men and by an efficient advocate the case have altered to an extent favorable to legislature where the violation remains strong and the men is unable to prove it !!!!!!!!!!!!! now is there any other alternative???????????

not clear.

please give example

consider the mines and minerals act as the illustration,and it is denying the rights of some people, And this act, it is included in the 9 th schedule . And now if there is a violation of part III of constitution and it is shattered by the advocate in the court. and this violation towards the people remains strong Is there any alternative power or way from the part of any institutions or judges or court or any one????????????????

1) Laws inconsistent with the fundamental rights;

2) Laws in derogation of the fundamental rights;

The above two types of laws are attracted by the article 13 of the C.O.I.

Now come to the clause 2 of art 13;

·        The State shall not make any law

·        Which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part

·        law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention,

·        be void.

Which means

In your plaint, you have to explain, how the law or it’s part, takes away (abridges) the rights conferred by this Part ie, fundamental rights under art 14 to 32. If the court satisfied with your argument then the whole law or it’s part - will be void.

According to your question:-

·        Mines and minerals act - it is denying the rights of some people, this act, included in the 9th schedule.

Now question is, whether the said rights are fundamental according to constitution or not?

·        if there is a violation of part III of constitution and it is shattered by the advocate in the court.

Now the question is, whether the court is The Supreme Court and the prayer is under art 13, 32 read with other concerned articles or not. If not, no question of judgement on it possible, as because only The Supreme Court possess that power and no other court of India.

·        this violation towards the people remains strong

This matter (violation – whether violated any of the fundamental right or not) to be judged by the SC only.

·        Is there any alternative power or way from the part of any institutions or judges or court or any one?

No.