“An unjust law is no law at all” is the idea that a rule which is seriously unjust does not deserve to be treated as law. The English sentence was made famous by Martin Luther King Jr., who wrote in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, dated 16 April 1963: “I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.'” King gave the credit to St. Augustine, and the idea is in Augustine’s Latin dialogue De Libero Arbitrio (On Free Choice of the Will), Book I, section 5.11: “Nam mihi lex esse non videtur, quae iusta non fuerit” – in the firm’s translation, “for a law that is not just does not seem to me to be a law”.
Indian law approaches the question differently. A court does not set a law aside because someone considers it unjust; it tests the law against the Constitution. Under Article 13 a law that takes away or abridges a fundamental right is void “to the extent of the contravention”, and even a constitutional amendment cannot alter the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973). The route is a writ petition; no legal right to disobey is recognised.
“An unjust law is no law at all” at a glance
- Who said it: Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (16 April 1963), crediting St. Augustine.
- Augustine’s words: “mihi lex esse non videtur, quae iusta non fuerit” (De Libero Arbitrio, Book I, 5.11), not lex iniusta non est lex.
- Indian law: a law inconsistent with the fundamental rights is void “to the extent of” the inconsistency or contravention (Article 13(1) and (2)); the rest survives.
- Amendments: outside Article 13 (Articles 13(4) and 368(3)), but they cannot alter the basic structure (Kesavananda Bharati, 24 April 1973).
- Where to challenge: the Supreme Court (Article 32, for fundamental rights only) or a High Court (Article 226, for fundamental rights and any other purpose).
- Right to disobey: none is recognised; peaceful speech and assembly are protected by Article 19(1)(a) and (b), subject to reasonable restrictions.
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The Constitution is quoted from the Legislative Department’s English edition of 2026 (as on 10 September 2026) and its Hindi edition (as on 1 May 2024), the judgments from the Supreme Court’s own copies and official headnotes, King’s words from the King Institute’s copy of the letter (read through the Internet Archive’s saved copy), and Augustine’s from the Latin text of De Libero Arbitrio (Patrologia Latina, vol. 32).
Who said “an unjust law is no law at all”?
King wrote the sentence while agreeing with St. Augustine; the earlier version of this page called it simply “a famous quote by Martin Luther King Jr.”, which was incomplete. According to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University, King was arrested in Birmingham, Alabama, on 12 April 1963 “for violating Alabama’s law against mass public demonstrations”, and the letter answered eight local clergymen who had criticised the campaign. Augustine’s passage comes from a dialogue with his friend Evodius about laws that let a traveller kill a robber in self-defence: Augustine asks whether such laws should be called unjust, “or rather no laws at all” (the firm’s translation), and adds that a law that is not just does not seem to him to be a law; Evodius replies that the law itself can be defended against that charge. King also cited St. Thomas Aquinas, but only to define an unjust law.
What does “an unjust law is no law at all” mean?
It means that a seriously unjust rule has no moral claim to obedience, even if a legislature passed it. King’s test was moral: a just law, he wrote, is in harmony with the moral law and an unjust law is at odds with it; examples are a rule that a majority imposes on a minority but not on itself, and a fair-looking rule used unfairly – in his case a parade-permit rule used to stop peaceful protest.
He did not advocate evading or defying the law: one who breaks an unjust law must do so “openly, lovingly”, and must be willing to accept the penalty. Even in his version, breaking a law has consequences.
How Indian law deals with an unjust law: Article 13
In India the question is whether a law is consistent with the Constitution, not whether it is unjust in the abstract. The key provision is Article 13, explained in the firm’s guide to Article 13 of the Indian Constitution. Article 13(2) says: “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.” Under Article 13(1), laws in force before the Constitution began are void “to the extent of such inconsistency” with Part III (the fundamental rights). “Law” includes “any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law” (Article 13(3)(a)).
Fundamental rights carry standards of fairness
Because Part III includes equality (Article 14), the freedoms (Article 19) and personal liberty (Article 21), testing a law against it often means testing its fairness. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (25 January 1978, seven judges), the headnote to Justice Bhagwati’s opinion records that “Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action” and that the procedure under Article 21 “must be right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive”.
“To the extent of” the inconsistency: an example
A court strikes down only the part that offends. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (6 September 2018), a Constitution Bench held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, “so far as it penalizes any consensual sexual relationship between two adults”, could not be regarded as constitutional, calling it in that respect “manifestly arbitrary”. Non-consensual acts and acts with animals remained offences under the section. (The Indian Penal Code was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024, which has no provision corresponding to Section 377.)
Constitutional amendments and the basic structure
Article 13 does not apply to amendments of the Constitution: Articles 13(4) and 368(3) say so, since the Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971. But in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (24 April 1973, thirteen judges) a majority of seven held: “The power to amend does not include the power to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution so as to change its identity.” In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) the Court declared Section 55 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act void because it tried to remove all limits on the amending power; the headnote says: “The power to destroy is not a power to amend.”
Where to challenge an unjust law: Articles 32 and 226
Article 32(1) says: “The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.” Under Article 226 every High Court may issue writs “for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose”. In Minerva Mills, Justice Bhagwati called this power of judicial review “unquestionably, to my mind, part of the basic structure of the Constitution”. Its use is traced in the firm’s article on judicial activism in India.
Prepared by Century Law Firm from Articles 13, 32, 226 and 368 of the Constitution of India (Legislative Department, 2026) and the Supreme Court’s judgments in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Navtej Singh Johar (2018).
Is there a right to disobey an unjust law in India?
No such legal right is recognised in the Constitution or in the judgments discussed here. In practice a law continues to be applied and enforced until a court declares it void or the legislature changes it, so a person who breaks it risks prosecution. A ruling need not undo the past either: in Navtej Singh Johar, Justice Indu Malhotra recorded that the reading down of Section 377 “shall not, however, lead to the re-opening of any concluded prosecutions”. Article 51A(a) also lists every citizen’s duty “to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions”.
What the Constitution protects is lawful opposition. Article 19(1)(a) gives citizens the right “to freedom of speech and expression” and Article 19(1)(b) the right “to assemble peaceably and without arms”, so people may criticise a law, campaign for its repeal and protest peacefully – subject to reasonable restrictions, for assembly “in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order” (Article 19(3)) and for speech on grounds such as public order, defamation and incitement to an offence (Article 19(2)). See the firm’s guide to Article 19.
“अन्यायपूर्ण कानून कोई कानून नहीं” – हिंदी में सारांश (Summary in Hindi)
“An unjust law is no law at all” का अर्थ है कि जो नियम गंभीर रूप से अन्यायपूर्ण है, वह कानून कहलाने का नैतिक अधिकार नहीं रखता। यह अंग्रेज़ी वाक्य मार्टिन लूथर किंग जूनियर ने 16 अप्रैल 1963 के अपने “लेटर फ्रॉम बर्मिंघम जेल” में लिखा था, और उन्होंने स्वयं कहा कि वे इस बात में संत ऑगस्टीन से सहमत हैं। ऑगस्टीन की लैटिन कृति “De Libero Arbitrio” (पुस्तक 1, खंड 5.11) में यही विचार है कि जो कानून न्यायपूर्ण नहीं है, वह उन्हें कानून प्रतीत नहीं होता। किंग ने यह भी लिखा कि अन्यायपूर्ण कानून तोड़ने वाले को यह खुलेआम, प्रेमपूर्वक और सज़ा स्वीकार करने की तैयारी के साथ करना चाहिए।
भारत में कोई अदालत किसी कानून को केवल इसलिए रद्द नहीं करती कि किसी को वह अनुचित लगता है। कसौटी संविधान है। अनुच्छेद 13(2) का आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ (विधायी विभाग) कहता है: “राज्य ऐसी कोई विधि नहीं बनाएगा जो इस भाग द्वारा प्रदत्त अधिकारों को छीनती है या न्यून करती है और इस खंड के उल्लंघन में बनाई गई प्रत्येक विधि उल्लंघन की मात्रा तक शून्य होगी ।” यहाँ “इस भाग” का अर्थ भाग 3 – मूल अधिकार है। “उल्लंघन की मात्रा तक” का अर्थ है कि पूरा कानून नहीं, केवल वही अंश शून्य होता है जो मूल अधिकारों से टकराता है। उदाहरण के लिए, नवतेज सिंह जौहर मामले (6 सितंबर 2018) में उच्चतम न्यायालय ने भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 377 को केवल वयस्कों के बीच सहमति से हुए यौन संबंधों की सीमा तक असंवैधानिक माना; बाकी धारा लागू रही। (भारतीय दंड संहिता संविधान से पहले की विधि है, इसलिए यहाँ अनुच्छेद 13(1) का यही ‘उस मात्रा तक’ वाला सिद्धांत लागू हुआ। 1 जुलाई 2024 से भारतीय दंड संहिता के स्थान पर भारतीय न्याय संहिता, 2023 लागू है, जिसमें धारा 377 के समान कोई उपबंध नहीं है।)
संविधान संशोधन पर अनुच्छेद 13 लागू नहीं होता (अनुच्छेद 13(4) और 368(3))। फिर भी केशवानंद भारती मामले (24 अप्रैल 1973) में उच्चतम न्यायालय ने बहुमत से कहा कि संशोधन की शक्ति में संविधान के मूल ढाँचे (basic structure) को बदलने की शक्ति शामिल नहीं है। मिनर्वा मिल्स मामले (1980) में इसी आधार पर 42वें संशोधन अधिनियम की धारा 55 शून्य घोषित की गई।
अन्यायपूर्ण कानून को चुनौती देने का रास्ता अदालत है: उच्चतम न्यायालय में अनुच्छेद 32 के अधीन और उच्च न्यायालय में अनुच्छेद 226 के अधीन रिट याचिका। अनुच्छेद 19(1)(क) और (ख) नागरिकों को बोलने की स्वतंत्रता और शांतिपूर्वक, बिना हथियारों के इकट्ठा होने का अधिकार देते हैं, पर लोक व्यवस्था जैसे आधारों पर इन पर उचित प्रतिबंध लगाए जा सकते हैं। इन स्रोतों में किसी कानून को अन्यायपूर्ण मानकर तोड़ने का कोई कानूनी अधिकार मान्य नहीं किया गया है: व्यवहार में, जब तक अदालत कानून को शून्य घोषित न करे, वह लागू किया जाता है, और नवतेज मामले में न्यायमूर्ति इंदु मल्होत्रा ने यह भी कहा कि फैसला पहले से समाप्त अभियोजनों को दोबारा नहीं खोलेगा।
यह सारांश फर्म ने तैयार किया है; केवल अनुच्छेद 13(2) का उद्धरण और “मूल अधिकार” शब्द संविधान के आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ से लिए गए हैं।
Frequently asked questions
Martin Luther King Jr. wrote it in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (16 April 1963), saying he agreed with St. Augustine. The idea is in Augustine’s De Libero Arbitrio, Book I, 5.11: “mihi lex esse non videtur, quae iusta non fuerit”. The earlier version of this page also said Thomas Aquinas developed it; King used Aquinas only to define an unjust law, not as the source of this sentence.
Partly. The English words are King’s, written after his arrest in Birmingham, Alabama, on 12 April 1963, but he presented them as Augustine’s view. An accurate citation is: King, agreeing with St. Augustine.
That a seriously unjust rule has no moral authority, even if properly passed, and so does not deserve the obedience owed to law. King used it to defend open, non-violent disobedience of segregation laws. Indian law asks a different question: whether the law is consistent with the Constitution (Article 13).
A Latin way of stating the saying: “an unjust law is not a law”. It is not the wording of Augustine’s own text, which reads “mihi lex esse non videtur, quae iusta non fuerit” – “a law that is not just does not seem to me to be a law”. More maxims are on the firm’s legal maxims page.
For King, a law at odds with the moral law, such as a rule a majority imposes on a minority but not on itself, or a fair rule used for an unfair purpose. In Indian constitutional law the test is legal: a law that takes away or abridges a fundamental right is void to the extent of the contravention (Article 13(2)).
Yes, a moral duty. King wrote that people have a moral as well as a legal duty to obey just laws, and a moral duty to disobey unjust ones, but that anyone who breaks such a law must do it in the open, with love rather than hatred. He accepted that a person who breaks such a law should take the punishment. No legal right to disobey is recognised in the Indian Constitution or in the judgments discussed here.
Only where the injustice amounts to a breach of the Constitution, for example arbitrariness under Article 14 or a procedure under Article 21 that is not “right and just and fair” (Maneka Gandhi, 1978); the law is then void to that extent under Article 13. A law that does not breach the Constitution remains binding, however harsh it seems; changing it is for the legislature.
No such legal right is recognised in the Constitution or in the judgments discussed here. The lawful routes are a challenge in a High Court (Article 226) or the Supreme Court (Article 32), and peaceful speech and assembly under Article 19(1)(a) and (b), subject to reasonable restrictions. In practice a law is applied and enforced until a court strikes it down, and in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) Justice Indu Malhotra recorded that the ruling would not reopen concluded prosecutions.
Only the part of a law that conflicts with the fundamental rights is invalid; the rest continues. Article 13(1) uses these words for pre-Constitution laws, and Article 13(2) makes later laws void “to the extent of the contravention”. In Navtej Singh Johar (2018), Section 377 IPC fell only so far as it covered consensual acts between adults.
Yes, if it alters the basic structure. Article 13 does not apply to amendments (Articles 13(4) and 368(3)), but in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (24 April 1973) a majority held that the amending power “does not include the power to alter the basic structure”, and in Minerva Mills (1980) Section 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act was declared void.
In the Supreme Court under Article 32, if the law breaches a fundamental right (Article 32 is only for “the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part”), or in a High Court under Article 226, which can issue writs for fundamental rights “and for any other purpose”. The procedure is explained in the firm’s guide to writ petitions under Articles 32 and 226.
Conclusion
“An unjust law is no law at all” is Augustine’s idea in King’s words. As a rule of Indian law it works only through the Constitution: a law that takes away fundamental rights is void to the extent of the conflict under Article 13, an amendment that alters the basic structure is invalid, and the place to say so is the Supreme Court or a High Court. Until then the law is in practice applied and enforced, and peaceful criticism and protest within Article 19 are the lawful ways to oppose it.
Sources used for this post: the Constitution of India, Articles 13, 14, 19, 21, 32, 51A, 226 and 368 (Legislative Department, English edition of 2026, as on 10 September 2026; Hindi text of Article 13 from its Hindi edition as on 1 May 2024); the Supreme Court’s official headnotes (Head Notes of Leading Cases, Vol. I, official copy) of Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala, [1973] Supp. SCR 1 (24 April 1973), Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR 621 (25 January 1978) and Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, [1981] 1 SCR 206 (31 July 1980); the Supreme Court’s copies of Minerva Mills (official copy) and of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016, 6 September 2018 (official copy); for the quotation, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute, Stanford University (its entry “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and its copy of the letter as published in Why We Can’t Wait, © The Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr.; the Institute’s PDF was read from the Internet Archive’s copy because it is no longer on the Institute’s site), and Augustine, De Libero Arbitrio, Book I, 5.11 (Latin text, Patrologia Latina, vol. 32, at augustinus.it), read on 23 October 2026.
