The Doctrine of Eclipse, rooted in Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, addresses the status of pre-constitutional laws that conflict with fundamental rights. Such laws are not nullified but rendered dormant, becoming enforceable upon the removal of the inconsistency.
MEANING, DEFINITION & EXPLANATION
The Doctrine of Eclipse posits that any pre-constitutional law conflicting with fundamental rights is overshadowed, or “eclipsed,” rendering it inoperative. However, it remains valid for past transactions and non-citizens. Upon amendment of the conflicting fundamental right, the law revives and becomes enforceable. This principle ensures that laws are not entirely invalidated but are suspended until constitutional inconsistencies are resolved.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND / EVOLUTION
The doctrine’s foundation lies in Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which addresses laws inconsistent with fundamental rights.
- Article 13(1): Renders pre-constitutional laws void to the extent of inconsistency.
- Article 13(2): Prohibits the state from making post-constitutional laws that infringe upon fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court, in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1955 SC 781), elucidated this doctrine, stating that laws eclipsed by fundamental rights are not dead but dormant and can be revived if the inconsistency is removed.
LEGAL PROVISIONS / PROCEDURE / SPECIFICATIONS / CRITERIA
- Article 13(1): Declares that all pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void to the extent of such inconsistency.
- Article 13(2): Prohibits the state from making laws that infringe upon fundamental rights, rendering any such law void ab initio.
These provisions ensure that laws conflicting with fundamental rights are either rendered dormant (pre-constitutional) or void from inception (post-constitutional).
CASE LAWS / PRECEDENTS / OVERRULING JUDGMENTS
-
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1955 SC 781):
- Facts: The C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947, authorized the state government to monopolize motor transport services, excluding private operators. Post-constitution, this was challenged for violating Article 19(1)(g).
- Issue: Whether the pre-constitutional law, now inconsistent with fundamental rights, was entirely void.
- Held: The Supreme Court held that the law was not null but dormant due to the inconsistency. The 1951 amendment to Article 19(6) removed this inconsistency, reviving the law.
-
Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959):
- Facts: A post-constitutional law was challenged for violating fundamental rights.
- Issue: Applicability of the Doctrine of Eclipse to post-constitutional laws.
- Held: The Supreme Court ruled that post-constitutional laws violating fundamental rights are void ab initio and cannot be revived by subsequent constitutional amendments.
-
State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974):
- Facts: A post-constitutional law was contested for inconsistency with fundamental rights.
- Issue: Whether such a law is entirely void or can have limited applicability.
- Held: The Supreme Court opined that a post-constitutional law inconsistent with fundamental rights is not null in all cases and may apply to individuals not entitled to those rights, such as non-citizens.
DOCTRINES / THEORIES
- Doctrine of Severability: This principle allows for the separation of unconstitutional provisions from a statute, enabling the remainder to remain operative. It complements the Doctrine of Eclipse by ensuring only the conflicting parts of a law are affected.
MAXIMS / PRINCIPLES
- “Lex non cogit ad impossibilia”: The law does not compel the impossible. This maxim underpins the Doctrine of Eclipse, acknowledging that laws valid at their inception should not be entirely invalidated due to subsequent constitutional developments.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER DOCTRINES
- Doctrine of Eclipse vs. Doctrine of Severability:
- Doctrine of Eclipse: Renders a conflicting law dormant until the inconsistency is removed.
- Doctrine of Severability: Excises the unconstitutional portion, allowing the rest to function.
- Application: The former applies primarily to pre-constitutional laws, whereas the latter can apply to both pre and post-constitutional laws.
APPLICATION TO NON-CITIZENS
The Doctrine of Eclipse primarily protects citizens’ fundamental rights. However, laws eclipsed due to inconsistency with citizens’ rights may still apply to non-citizens, as they are not entitled to certain fundamental rights under Articles like Article 19. This distinction was highlighted in the State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills case.
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
The Doctrine of Eclipse ensures that pre-constitutional laws are not entirely nullified due to inconsistencies with fundamental rights. This allows for the possibility of their revival if constitutional amendments remove the inconsistencies, maintaining legal continuity and stability.
CRITICISM / APPRECIATION
-
Criticism:
- Some scholars argue that the doctrine creates ambiguity regarding the status of laws and their applicability, potentially leading to legal uncertainty.
-
Appreciation:
- The doctrine is praised for balancing the preservation of existing laws with the protection of fundamental rights, ensuring that laws are not hastily invalidated but are given the opportunity for revival upon constitutional amendments.
CONCLUSION
The Doctrine of Eclipse plays a pivotal role in Indian constitutional law by addressing the status of pre-constitutional laws conflicting with fundamental rights.
