The Judiciary is the guardian of the rights provided for in the Constitution of India. It is the job of the judiciary to restrain the actions of the Legislature and the Executive where they are infringing upon these rights. When the Constitution was adopted on January 26, 1950, with it came, the fundamental rights that are guaranteed to the citizens.
There were several existing laws at the time when the Constitution was adopted, some of which were in direct conflict with fundamental rights, so in order to determine the validity of these laws the Supreme Court came up with certain principles/doctrines, one of which was the Doctrine of Eclipse.
- This doctrine emanates directly from Article 13(1) of the Constitution that is a part of the fundamental rights, which states, “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, i.e. Part III, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.”
- The doctrine of eclipse envisages fundamental rights as prospective in nature.
- It states that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with the fundamental rights is not a nullity or void ab initio but only remains unenforceable, i.e., remains in a dormant state.
- They exist for all past transactions, i.e., for rights and liabilities that were acquired before the Constitution came into being.
- These laws also remain applicable to individuals who have not been given fundamental rights, for example, non-citizens.
- Therefore, the impugned law remains hidden behind the fundamental rights and can become operative again if and when the fundamental right it is inconsistent with is amended.
What is the Doctrine of Eclipse?
The Doctrine of Eclipse is a legal principle in India that deals with the relationship between fundamental rights and existing laws that may be inconsistent with them. The Doctrine of Eclipse is addressed in Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution.
According to the doctrine of the eclipse, if a law conflicts with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, it does not automatically become null and void. Instead, it is considered in a state of eclipse or overshadowed by fundamental rights.
If a statute is inconsistent with the provisions of Part III, it shall be deemed void. However, this does not render the entire law null and void under this doctrine; only the portion inconsistent with Part III of the Indian Constitution becomes void. The law is not abolished entirely but remains dormant, subject to the discretion of the Parliament.
The doctrine states that while such a law exists, its enforceability is restricted. It becomes unenforceable against citizens whose fundamental rights are violated by the law. However, it may remain applicable to non-citizens who are not entitled to the same fundamental rights. The doctrine does not entirely erase the law from the statute book but renders it dormant and ineffective as it violates fundamental rights.
The Doctrine of Eclipse allows for remedying the conflict between the law and fundamental rights through a constitutional amendment. Amending the relevant fundamental right removes the eclipse, and the entire law becomes valid and enforceable again.
Salient Features
- The doctrine only applies to pre-constitutional laws that were valid at their inception.
- The doctrine is not applicable to post-constitutional laws since they are invalid from the very inception because of being inconsistent with Part III; the same was held by the Supreme Court in Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh. However, non-citizens can’t take any advantage of the rule as the violation doesn’t impact them.
- The impugned law must be violative of the fundamental rights, and then only can it be hidden or eclipsed.
- The law that turns out to be violative of Part III does not become a nullity but just remains unenforceable & defective.
- If the fundamental right that is violated by the impugned law is amended in the future, the law automatically becomes operative.
Elements of Doctrine of Eclipse
- Pre-constitutional law: The doctrine applies to laws enacted before the Constitution’s commencement.
- Conflict with fundamental rights: The law in question must directly conflict with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
- Inoperativeness rather than nullity: The law does not become wholly invalid or null and void. Instead, it becomes inoperative or unenforceable against citizens whose fundamental rights are violated by the law.
- Potential for future operativeness: If there is an amendment to the relevant fundamental right in the future, it automatically makes the previously impugned law operative again. This means that the law can be enforced and applied once the conflict with fundamental rights is resolved through a constitutional amendment.
Status of Post ConstitutionalLlaw under Article 13
Article 13(3) of the Indian Constitution prohibits the State from enacting any law that deprives or curtails the rights conferred by Part III, which pertains to fundamental rights. If the State passes a law inconsistent with or infringes upon Part III of the Constitution, it will be deemed ultra vires and void to the extent of its contravention with fundamental rights.
Such a law is stillborn and cannot be revived by removing the constitutional prohibition through a subsequent amendment to the Constitution. Even if the constitutional prohibition is removed, the law remains invalid. To establish the invalidity of post-constitution laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights, a declaration by the court is necessary.
Court Rulings related to Doctrine of Eclipse
Pannala Binaraj v. Union of India (1957)
The case of Pannala Binaraj v. Union of India (1957) reiterated the principle established in Keshava Madavan Menon. It upheld the prospective nature of Article 13(1) and highlighted that unless a statute expressly indicates retrospective application, it should be presumed to be prospective.
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court established the doctrine of the eclipse in the landmark case of Bhikhaji v. State of M.P., AIR 1955 S.C. 781. In this case, the provisions of the C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 1948 allowed the State Government to monopolise the motor transport business in the province, excluding other motor transport operators.
Although this provision was valid when enacted, it became void upon the commencement of the Constitution in 1950 as it violated Article 19(1)(g).
However, in 1951, Clause (6) of Article 19 was amended through the Constitution (1st Amendment Act) to authorise the government to establish a monopoly in any business. The Supreme Court determined that this amendment removed the shadow of unconstitutionality from the impugned Act, freeing it from any flaw or defect.
Once the constitutional impediment was removed, the law became enforceable against citizens and non-citizens. During the eclipse period, the law was temporarily suspended due to the conflict with fundamental rights. However, once the eclipse was removed, the law resumed its operation from the date of such removal.
One of the earliest cases where the doctrine of eclipse can be traced back is Keshava Madavan Menon v State of Bombay (1951). In this case, the appellant faced charges under the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 for a pamphlet published in 1949. The appellant argued that the case against him could not be constituted as the pamphlet aligned with the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
However, the court opined that since the pamphlet was published before the existence of fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution, the appellant could not claim protection under them. This case established the prospective nature of fundamental rights, meaning they apply only from the time of their incorporation into the Constitution. Additionally, the court held that Article 13(1) is prospective in its application and does not have retrospective effect unless specifically stated otherwise.
In the case of FN Balsara, the Court declared Section 13(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act of 1949 as void because it violated Article 19(1) (f) of the Constitution. The Court again held that only the part of the statute that is violative of Part III is inoperative and not the whole Statute.
