Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay
Article 13(1)
13. (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.
Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay
Fact:
pamphlet in Urdu entitled “Railway Mazdoorun Ke Khilaf Nai Sazish.”
Section 18(1) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931
secretary of the People’s Publishing House Ltd., Bombay was arrested [On the 9th December, 1949]
Constitution comes into foce on 26 Jan, 1950

Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay
Issue:Two questions
Whether Sections 15(1) and 18(1) read with the definitions contained in Sections 2(6) and 2(10) of the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, were inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a) read with clause (2) of that article?
Assuming that they were inconsistent, whether the proceedings commenced under Section 18(1) of that Act before the commencement of the Constitution could nevertheless be proceeded with?

Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay
Court:
The High Court, therefore, reached the conclusion that proceedings under the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, which were pending at the date of the commencement of the Constitution were not affected, even if the Act were inconsistent with the fundamental rights conferred by Article 19(1)(a) and as such became void under Article 13(1) of the Constitution after January 26, 1950

Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay
Court:
Every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implications made to have retrospective operation.
Article 13(1) does not in terms make the existing laws which are inconsistent with the fundamental rights void ab initio or for all purposes.