📋 The Seminar Exchange
X said
The meaning of ‘law’ under Article 13 is comprehensive — it includes ordinances, orders, rules and regulations. When Y pointed out that ‘law’ also includes custom or usage having the force of law, X was not convinced.
Y said
The term ‘law’ in Article 13 also includes custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law.
📜 Article 13(3)(a) — Actual Constitutional Text
“In this article, unless the context otherwise requires, ‘law’ includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law.”
What X got right: Ordinances, orders, rules, regulations ✓
What X got wrong: Being not convinced that custom/usage is included — it is explicitly there
What Y got right: Custom or usage having the force of law ✓ — verbatim from Article 13(3)(a)
What X got right: Ordinances, orders, rules, regulations ✓
What X got wrong: Being not convinced that custom/usage is included — it is explicitly there
What Y got right: Custom or usage having the force of law ✓ — verbatim from Article 13(3)(a)
AX is correct in interpretation of law, including the view on non-inclusion of custom
BThe view of Y that ‘law’ included custom is not correct
CThe views of both X and Y are correct
DThe view of only Y is correct ✓
🔑 The Decisive Distinction — Why D beats C
The question pivots on one phrase: “X was not convinced.”
If X had merely listed ordinances/orders without commenting on custom, both X and Y would be correct (Option C) — each stating a true subset of Article 13(3)(a).
But X actively rejected Y’s correct addition of custom/usage. This makes X’s overall interpretive position constitutionally wrong — X holds that ‘law’ does NOT include custom, which directly contradicts Article 13(3)(a).
Y’s position — that custom/usage is included — is verbatim correct per Article 13(3)(a) and is stated as a complete, accurate view. Therefore only Y’s view, as a whole, is correct.
If X had merely listed ordinances/orders without commenting on custom, both X and Y would be correct (Option C) — each stating a true subset of Article 13(3)(a).
But X actively rejected Y’s correct addition of custom/usage. This makes X’s overall interpretive position constitutionally wrong — X holds that ‘law’ does NOT include custom, which directly contradicts Article 13(3)(a).
Y’s position — that custom/usage is included — is verbatim correct per Article 13(3)(a) and is stated as a complete, accurate view. Therefore only Y’s view, as a whole, is correct.
Each Option — Why It Passes or Fails
AX is correct, including non-inclusion of custom — ✗ Wrong
X’s specific positive statements (ordinances, orders, rules, regulations) are individually correct. But Option A also endorses X’s view that custom is NOT included. Article 13(3)(a) explicitly includes custom/usage. So A = constitutionally wrong on the custom point.
BY’s view on custom is not correct — ✗ Wrong
This is directly contradicted by Article 13(3)(a) which explicitly states ‘law’ includes “custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law.” Y is entirely correct. Option B is constitutionally false.
CBoth X and Y are correct — ✗ Wrong
This would be correct only if X had not commented on custom. But X was “not convinced” by Y — meaning X’s position includes the claim that custom is NOT part of ‘law’. Since that claim is constitutionally wrong, X’s view as a whole is not correct. C cannot stand.
DOnly Y’s view is correct — ✓ Correct (Official Answer)
Y’s statement — that ‘law’ under Article 13 includes custom or usage having the force of law — is verbatim from Article 13(3)(a) and constitutionally accurate. Y’s view is complete and correct. X’s overall position (law does not include custom) is constitutionally wrong. Only Y is correct as a whole.
Article 13 — Complete Reference for UPSC
| Provision | Content |
| Art. 13(1) | All pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of inconsistency |
| Art. 13(2) | State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights — such law is void to the extent of contravention |
| Art. 13(3)(a) — THIS QUESTION | ‘law’ includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law |
| Art. 13(3)(b) | ‘laws in force’ includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of the Constitution |
| Art. 13(4) | Nothing in Art. 13 shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under Art. 368 (added by 24th Amendment 1971) |
| Doctrine of Eclipse | Pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with FRs are not void ab initio — they become unenforceable (eclipsed) but revive if the FRs are amended |
| Doctrine of Severability | Only the inconsistent part of a law is void — the rest remains valid if severable |
| X’s error | Being “not convinced” that custom/usage is included — directly contradicts Art. 13(3)(a) which explicitly includes it |
| Y’s accuracy | Custom or usage having the force of law — verbatim from Art. 13(3)(a). Y is constitutionally precise. |
Memory Trick
🧠 Remember It This Way
“Not convinced” = the killer phrase: The entire question hinges on X being “not convinced” about custom. If X had simply listed ordinances/orders without rejecting custom, both X and Y would be right (Option C). The moment X rejects Y’s correct addition, X’s overall position becomes wrong. Always check what a person denies, not just what they affirm.
Article 13(3)(a) — the complete list to memorise: Ordinance · Order · Bye-law · Rule · Regulation · Notification · Custom or Usage (having force of law). The last item is what Y correctly added and X incorrectly rejected.
Why custom/usage matters: India has a vast body of customary law — particularly in personal law, tribal law, and land rights. Article 13 deliberately includes these because they have the practical force of law and can equally violate Fundamental Rights if inconsistent with Part III.
