DOCTRINE OF ECLIPISE
INTRODUCTION
When India’s Constitution came into effect on January 26, 1950, it guaranteed fundamental rights to its citizens. Even before these rights were granted, there were existing laws conflicting with the newly created rights. The Doctrine of Eclipse was developed by the Supreme Court of India to deal with this situation. If a law existed before the Constitution and was inconsistent with its fundamental rights that law was considered "eclipsed" or temporarily invalid. However, if the law is later amended to align with the Constitution’s provisions, it is revived and becomes enforceable again. This doctrine ensures that laws eventually conform to constitutional standards while allowing for the correction of earlier inconsistencies
Article 13 of the Constitution of India is crucial because it protects our fundamental rights, which are outlined in Part III of the Constitution. It states that the government cannot make any law that violates these fundamental rights. Think of it like a protective shield around our rights. If the government tries to pass a law that goes against our fundamental rights, Article 13 steps in to prevent that law from being enforced. This ensures that our rights are respected and upheld by law.
Articles 32 and 226 are also important because they provide ways for citizens to challenge any infringement of their fundamental rights after the fact. They allow people to go to court and seek remedies through writs and public interest litigation. So, while Articles 32 and 226 deal with what happens if our rights are violated, Article 13 sets the stage by making sure that such violations shouldn’t happen in the first place. It’s like setting boundaries to protect our fundamental rights right from the beginning.
Article 13 of the Indian Constitution
Article 13 (1) talks about the pre-independence laws
Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India states that any law or order in India that was in force before the Constitution came into effect shall be considered void if it contradicts the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Before India adopted its Constitution, British laws were in force and some of them did not respect the rights of Indian citizens. Article 13(1) ensures that on the day the Indian Constitution was adopted, any existing law that went against these new fundamental rights became invalid. This provision helped remove laws that were inconsistent with the rights and freedoms promised to Indian citizens under the Constitution.
In essence, Article 13(1) acted as a safeguard to ensure that all laws in India are in line with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, marking a significant step towards protecting the rights of Indian citizens from laws that were not compatible with these rights.
Article 13 (2) talks about the post-independence laws
Article 13 (2) says that the state shall not make any law that is not consistent with part III of the constitution. If any law made after the commencement of the constitution by the state is inconsistent with part III, the law will become void. Article 13 (2) provides 2 points:
• The state will not make any law that is inconsistent with fundamental rights.
• If the state makes any law that is contrary to part III of the constitution, that law will become void ab initio.
The Doctrine of Eclipse deals with laws made by the Legislature that clash with the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution of India. When such a clash occurs, the law is not completely nullified but becomes ineffective or "eclipsed" to the extent that it contradicts fundamental rights.
Imagine a law cast in the shadow of fundamental rights. While in this state, it cannot be enforced—it’s like it’s sleeping or dormant. However, if the fundamental rights are later amended to accommodate the law, the shadow is lifted, and the law becomes valid and enforceable again.
So, rather than being immediately void from the start, a law that violates fundamental rights under the Doctrine of Eclipse is temporarily ineffective until it aligns with constitutional standards. This principle ensures that laws eventually comply with the Constitution without immediately invalidating them. It is not a nullity or void ab initio
1. Origin and Scope: The Doctrine of Eclipse comes from Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, which states that any law existing before the Constitution, inconsistent with Part III (Fundamental Rights), is void to the extent of inconsistency.
2. Prospective Nature: It considers applying these primary rights from the moment when the Constitution becomes operative. Any law contravening such rights is neither void ab initio nor automatically unenforceable but dormant until such time as it qualifies to constitutional specification.
3. Status of Pre-Constitutional Laws: Laws conflicting with fundamental rights aren’t considered null and void from the beginning. Instead, they’re in a dormant state, inactive until they’re amended to comply with constitutional requirements.
4. Application to Past Transactions: These laws apply to deeds in the past. Rights and obligations that have come into being by the time this Constitution was brought into force are the ones covered by the laws.
5. Applicability to Non-Citizens: Such laws may still apply to individuals who aren’t granted fundamental rights, like non-citizens, as long as they don’t contradict other laws or international agreements.
On the contrary, the "Doctrine of Eclipse" is that somewhat subtle principle which has been able to save the "pre-constitutional laws" from total obliteration. In fact, it has provided the same legality between pre-constitutional and post-constitutional positions about various laws; this has ensured the success of constitutionalism in its every sense.
Salient features of the Doctrine of Eclipse:
1. Applicability to Pre-Constitutional Laws: The Doctrine of Eclipse applies to laws that were valid before the Indian Constitution came into effect on January 26, 1950. If these laws conflict with fundamental rights, they become inactive or dormant but not completely void.
2. Non-Applicability to Post-Constitutional Laws: It does not apply to laws created after the Constitution’s adoption because such laws are invalid from the beginning if they violate fundamental rights. However, there are exceptions for non-citizens who may not benefit from this voidness.
3. Conflict with Fundamental Rights: However, a pre-constitutional law cannot be in conflict with the fundamental rights that are within the Constitution. In such cases, the law is obliterated, and it will not be enforced until the requirement of the constitution is satisfied.
4. Inoperative Nature: Instead of being null and void from the outset, the law remains in a dormant state. It’s like it’s asleep and cannot be enforced until it’s amended to comply with the Constitution.
5. Effect of Fundamental Rights Amendment: If the fundamental rights relevant to the law are amended in the future to accommodate it, the law automatically becomes valid and enforceable again.
EVOLUTION OF DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE
The development of the Doctrine of Eclipse in simpler terms based on the cases mentioned:
1. Keshavananda Bharti Case (Prospective/Retrospective Nature):
– Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Bombay dealt with the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931. The petitioner argued that this law violated their freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
– The Supreme Court ruled that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are ‘void’ to the extent of their inconsistency. However, ‘void’ doesn’t mean the law is repealed immediately; it means the law remains unenforceable until it is amended to comply with the Constitution.
– The Court also established that fundamental rights generally apply prospectively, meaning they apply from the time of the Constitution’s adoption onwards.
2. F.N. Balsara & Behram Khurshid Pesikaka Case (Nexus between Article 13(1) and Pre-Constitutional Laws):
– In the case of F.N. Balsara and later in Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay, the Supreme Court explored the connection between Article 13(1) and pre-constitutional laws.
– It was held that if a specific provision of a law violates fundamental rights, only that particular provision becomes inoperative, not the entire law.
– The burden of proving citizenship and the violation of rights lies with the accused challenging the law.
3. Bhikaji Narain Dhakras Case (Genesis and Evolution):
– In Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court refined the Doctrine of Eclipse.
– The case involved the C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Amendment Act of 1947, which allowed the state to regulate motor transport businesses.
– This law was found to violate Article 19(1) (g) (right to practice any profession or occupation), and thus it was initially rendered inoperative under the Doctrine of Eclipse.
– When Article 19(1) (g) was amended in 1951, removing the inconsistency, the law became enforceable again.
– The Court clarified that amendments to fundamental rights remove the ‘shadow’ over such laws, making them valid and enforceable once more.
These cases illustrate how the Doctrine of Eclipse operates in relation to pre-constitutional laws that conflict with fundamental rights. It ensures that such laws are not immediately struck down but rather remain inoperative until they are brought into conformity with constitutional standards through amendments or other legal measures.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS RELATED TO THE DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE
There has always been a legal struggle concerning the applicability of the Doctrine. Does the Doctrine apply to Article 13(1), i.e. Pre-Constitutional Laws or Article 13(2), i.e. Post-Constitutional Laws? This struggle has been the crux of the issue that has been argued in several cases. The same was settled in the case of Bhikaji Narain and Deep Chand.
In the case of Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of the Doctrine of Eclipse:
1. Applicability to Pre-Constitutional Laws: The Doctrine of Eclipse applies specifically to laws that existed before the Constitution came into force (pre-constitutional laws). These laws, if found inconsistent with fundamental rights under Article 13(1), are not immediately void but become inactive or dormant until amended.
2. Non-Applicability to Post-Constitutional Laws: Post-constitutional laws, created after the adoption of the Constitution, are treated differently. If they violate fundamental rights, they are considered void from the beginning (‘void ab initio’). This means they are invalid and cannot be enforced at any point.
3. Subsequent Cases: The decisions in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Deep Chand were reaffirmed and upheld in subsequent cases such as State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills, Mahendra Lal Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, P. L. Mehra v. D. R. Khanna, and Sagir Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
The Doctrine of Eclipse preserves pre-existing laws but requires them to align with the Constitution’s fundamental rights. Post-constitutional laws violating these rights are immediately invalid, ensuring that all laws comply with constitutional standards right from their enactment.
The Doctrine of Eclipse in relation to Article 368 of the Indian Constitution, based on the cases mentioned:
1. Golaknath Case (Eclipse of Article 368):
– In the case of I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament did not have the authority to amend fundamental rights under Article 368 of the Constitution.
– This decision implied that fundamental rights were beyond the reach of Parliament’s amending power, effectively eclipsing Article 368 with respect to fundamental rights.
– The Court held that fundamental rights were sacrosanct and could not be amended to curtail individual liberties.
2. Keshavananda Bharti Case (Removal of Eclipse from Article 368):
– The landmark case of Keshavananda Bharti v. Union of India overturned the decision in Golaknath.
– The Supreme Court held that while Parliament could amend fundamental rights under Article 368, it could not alter the basic structure of the Constitution.
– This decision removed the Eclipse from Article 368 by clarifying that Parliament’s amending power was subject to the Constitution’s basic framework, ensuring that fundamental rights could be amended within these limits.
In Golaknath case initially restricted Parliament’s power to amend fundamental rights, effectively eclipsing Article 368. However, the Keshavananda Bharti case later clarified that while Parliament could amend fundamental rights, it must respect the Constitution’s basic structure. This clarification removed the Eclipse from Article 368 and established the framework for amending fundamental rights within constitutional limits.
DOCTRINE OF SEVERABLITY
The doctrine of severability, also known as the separability doctrine or the severability clause, is a legal principle that addresses the issue of whether a contract or a law can remain valid and enforceable even if certain parts of it are found to be invalid or unconstitutional. The doctrine is based on the idea that if a part of a law is deemed to be invalid, that particular provision can be “severed” or removed, allowing the rest of the law to remain in effect.
In doctrine of severability in constitutional law is used to avoid throwing out an entire law just because one part of it violates the Constitution.
1. Purpose: The main goal of severability is to preserve the parts of a law that are valid and enforceable even if other parts are unconstitutional. This ensures that the law can still be applied effectively without the unconstitutional elements.
2. Application: When a court finds that a specific provision of a law conflicts with the Constitution (such as fundamental rights in India), it doesn’t necessarily mean the entire law is scrapped. Instead, the court examines whether the rest of the law can function independently without the unconstitutional part.
3. Outcome: If the court determines that the valid parts of the law can operate separately from the unconstitutional parts, it will strike down only the unconstitutional provisions. The remaining parts of the law continue to be valid and enforceable.
4. In Indian Context (Article 13): Article 13 of Indian Constitution empowers the courts to declare as void certain laws that violate fundamental rights. The doctrine of severability is applied by the courts to meticulously excise only the offending portion of the law and leave intact the law. In this manner, the legislative intent is respected, and an invalid law can be treated as valid.
Severability is about surgically removing unconstitutional elements from laws while preserving the functional parts, thereby maintaining the law’s overall effectiveness and compliance with constitutional principles.
The doctrine of severability was discussed at length in the case of R.M.D.C v. the State of Bombay, and the court laid down the following principles.
- In order to find out whether the valid part of the statute can be separated from the invalid part, the intention of the legislature is the determining factor.
- In case the valid and non-valid parts of a particular statute are inseparable then it will invariably result in the invalidity of the entire statute.
- When the statute stands independently after the invalid portion is struck out then it will be upheld, notwithstanding that the rest of the Statute has become unenforceable.
- In cases where the valid and invalid parts are separable but both of them were intended to be part of the same scheme, then the whole scheme will be invalid.
- There may be instances where the valid and invalid parts are separable and not part of the same scheme, however, invalidating the valid part leaves the rest too thin and truncated, then also it will be invalidated as a whole.
- Severability is to be determined by reading the statute as a whole and not specific provisions or parts.
- In order to find the legislative intent behind a statute, it will be legitimate to take into account the history, object, title and preamble
In Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachillhu, it was contended that the anti-defection law is incompatible with freedom of speech. The Supreme Court held that even on removing para 7 from the 10th Schedule, it remains complete and valid. Since the remaining provisions of the 10th schedule are valid and workable after application of the doctrine.
A.K. Gopalan was detained by the State of Madras under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. Gopalan challenged his detention, contending that it violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in the case of A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras, ruled that the rest of the Preventive Detention Act shall be treated as constitutionally valid except for Section 14. Removing that section, the rest of the Act will remain unaffected and hence has to stand valid and operative.
The doctrine of severability played a crucial role in the Minerva Mills case as the court examined the constitutional validity of various provisions of the 42nd Amendment. The court declared Article 368(4), which sought to exclude the jurisdiction of courts over constitutional amendments, as unconstitutional. It held that judicial review was an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution and could not be excluded. The court applied the doctrine of severability to strike down this specific provision while leaving the rest of the 42nd Amendment intact.
|
Difference Between Doctrine of Eclipse and Doctrine of Severability |
||
|
Feature |
Doctrine of Eclipse |
Doctrine of Severability |
|
Meaning |
It aims to preserve valid laws even if they contain unconstitutional elements, as long as the core purpose of the law is not defeated. |
It allows for the removal of unconstitutional parts from law while keeping the valid portions intact and enforceable. |
|
Goal |
Protect Fundamental Rights while minimizing disruption to the existing legal framework. |
Preserve legislative intent and validity of the remaining provisions of the law. |
|
Applicability |
Pre-Constitutional Laws. |
All Laws. (Pre and Post-Constitution) |
|
Judicial Interpretation |
Courts may “eclipse” or nullify the unconstitutional parts of a law but preserve the remaining portions if they are separable and the law can still function effectively. |
Courts have the power to “sever” or remove the unconstitutional provisions from the law while leaving the rest intact. Thus, assuring the law’s continued operation without violating constitutional rights. |
|
Outcome |
Unconstitutional parts of the law are rendered void, ineffective, or “eclipsed,” but the remainder of the law remains legally enforceable. |
The unconstitutional provisions are severed, nullified, or “cut out,” leaving the valid portions of the law intact and capable of enforcement. |
|
Examples |
If a statute contains provisions that violate Fundamental Rights, such as the right to privacy, the offending parts may be “eclipsed” while the rest of the law remains valid. |
A law imposes restrictions on free speech, but certain provisions are found to be unconstitutional. The court may “sever” those provisions while upholding the rest of the law. |
|
Cases |
In Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh. |
In R.M.D.C. v. Union of India. |
CONCLUSION
Moreover, Article 13 of the Constitution of India throws strong protection over the Fundamental Rights. It ordained that laws contravening the Fundamental Rights shall be void in so far as they derogate from these rights. The Doctrine of Eclipse, however, supplements this by dealing with pre-constitutional laws which had been in their original form inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights. This doctrine does not declare such laws null and void but restores them after the inconsistency is removed. Thus, this exercise maintains constitutionalism and harmonizes laws by filling the gap that old and new laws create. It strongly indicates that pre-constitutional laws would acquire validity through an amendment and thus put them at par with their relevancy and utility in Indian jurisprudence.
REFERENCES
1. https://www.studocu.com/in/document/osmaniauniversity/indian-constitutional-law-the-new-challenges/lecture-notes/llb-notesconstitutional-law-complete-units/2971235/view
– (Supreme Court of India 1950).
-Bhikaji v. State of MP (Supreme Court of India 1955).
-Keshava Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay (Supreme Court of India).
-https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-ug/doctrine-of-severability-under-indian-constitution/
– https://lawnotes.co/doctrine-of-severability/
– http://student.manupatra.com/Academic/Abk/Constitutional-Law-of-India/CHAPTER-6.htm
– https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-eclipse-a-comprehensive-analysis/
– https://lexlife68840978.wordpress.com/tag/doctrine-of-eclipse/
BLOGS REFERRED:
1. BLOG ARCHIVE- CENTRE FOR LAW AND POLICY FRESEARCH
2. THE CRIMINAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BLOG
3. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ARCHIVES, SCC BLOG