Doctrine of Eclipse

Interpretation of statute
 Doctrine of Eclipse
• The Doctrine of Eclipse states that any law
which is inconsistent with fundamental rights
is not invalid. It is not totally dead but
overshadowed by the fundamental right. The
inconsistency (conflict) can be removed by
constitutional amendment. The amendment
to the relevant fundamental right will remove
the eclipse and the entire law becomes valid.
 Article 13 of Indian Costitution
• Article 13 states that any law which was made
before the commencement of the constitution
must be consistent with the part III of the Indian
Constitution. If any statue which is inconsistence
with the provisions provided under part III of the
Indian constitution such statue shall become
void. At the same time such statue shall not be
treated as dead but will be in the moribund
condition until and unless it is abolished by the
Parliament.
 Bhikaji v State of MP AIR 1955:

• The MP Government passed an Act in the year 1950 for

nationalizing the motor transport and the Act was passed
before the commencement of the constitution. The statue
was challenged by the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of
the constitution. The Central Government amended the
Act that enabling the state to nationalize the motor
transport. The apex court held that the statue of Madhya
Pradesh State of nationalizing the motor transport was
cured by the 4th Amendment Act 1955 and therefore the
Doctrine of Eclipse has been applied and such Act is valid.
 Elements of Doctrine of Eclipse

• It should be Pre-constitutional law

• Must be in conflict with fundamental right
• the law doesn't become a dead letter but only
inoperative
• if there is an amendment to the Fundamental
Right in future it will automatically make the
impugned law operative.
Article 13(3) of Indian Constitution
• Article 13(3) prohibits State to make any law
which takes away or abridges rights conferred
by part III i.e., fundamental right of the
constitution. If state makes such a law which
in inconsistent or infringes Part 3 of the
constitution then it will be declared ultra vires
and void to the extent of its contravention
with fundamental rights.
• Article 13 expressly states that a law in
contravention of the provisions of the
Constitution shall be invalid only to the extent
of the inconsistency. Thus, the part of the law
that is consistent with the constitutional
provisions should be saved by the application of
the doctrine of severability. It is necessary that
the valid part be severable in application or
severable in enforcement from the invalid part.
 Constitution of India.
• Article 251 and 254 also provide that when
there is a conflict between the state law and
the union law relating to a matter enumerated
in the concurrent list, the union law would
prevail and the state law would be rendered
inoperative only ‘to the extent of’ the
repugnancy.
 Doctrine of Severibility
• This doctrine of severability is also known as
the doctrine of separability. The word “to the
extent of the inconsistency or contravention”
makes it clear that when some of the
provision of a statue become unconstitutional
on account of inconsistency with fundamental
rights, only to the repugnant provision of the
law in question shall be treated by the courts
as void, and not the whole statute.
 Two factors:-
• There are two primary factors that the courts
consider while determining whether the doctrine
of severability should be applied or not. The first
factor is the legislative intent. If the courts find
that the legislative intent behind the enactment of
the concerned statute favours severance, then the
courts will apply the doctrine. The second factor is
public interest. The courts apply the doctrine of
severance only if it is evident that the application
of this doctrine would serve the public interest.
 R.M.D.Chamarbaugwalla v.U.O.I(1957)
• The Supreme Court laid down the guidelines
relating to the application of the doctrine of
severability. In this case, the constitutionality of
the Prize Competition Act, 1955, was challenged,
which imposed a prohibition on games of chance
as well as games of skill. Applying the rule of
severability, the Court held that the part
restricting the games of skill was ultra vires,
while the remaining statute was saved.
 Shankari Prasad Case, 1951

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the

term ‘law’ in Article 13 includes only ordinary
laws and not Constitutional Amendment Acts.
Thus, Parliament can take away or abridge any
of the Fundamental Rights by enacting a
Constitutional Amendment Act.
 Golak Nath Case, 1967

In this case, the Supreme Court reversed its

earlier stand and held that the term ‘law’ in
Article 13 also includes Constitutional
Amendment Acts. Hence, the Parliament
cannot take away or abridge a Fundamental
Right through a Constitutional Amendment
Act.
 Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973

• In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of

the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act and stated that the
Parliament can take away or abridge any of the Fundamental
Rights.
• However, it laid down a new Doctrine of the Basic Structure
of the Constitution, according to which, the constituent
power of Parliament under Article 368 does not enable it to
alter the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
• Thus, the overall position after the pronouncement of this
judgment is that the Parliament cannot take away or abridge
a Fundamental Right that forms a part of the ‘basic structure’
of the Constitution.
 Article 13 in Constitution of India

• 13. Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the

fundamental rights
• (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
Pan, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
• (2)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
 Article 13 in Constitution of India
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a)"law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule,
regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the
territory of India the force of law;(b)"laws in force" includes
laws passed or made by Legislature or other competent
authority in the territory of India before the
commencement of this Constitution and not previously
repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part
thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in
particular areas.
(4)Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this
Constitution made under article 368.
Ahmedabad Women Action Group v. Union
of India, AIR 1977,

Supreme Court said that personal laws (Hindu

Law, Muslim Law, and Christian Law) are not
part of the definition of Law under Article 13.
The Bye-Laws made by the Cooperative
Societies are also not part of the definition of
Law.
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1967)

The Supreme Court overruled the Shankari Prasad

verdict and stated that the word ‘Law’ in Article 13(2)
includes the constitutional amendments. If any
constitutional amendment is infringing the
Fundamental rights then that amendment will be void.

T​ o nullify the Golak Nath decision the Parliament

passed the 24th Amendment Act, 1971, wherein
parliament added Clause 4 in Article 13 which stated
that nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment
of this Constitution made under Article 368.
 Doctrine of Tussle
The debate regarding the scope of the power
of the Parliament to amend the Constitution
under Article 368 started way back in 1951.
This issue initiated a tussle between the
Legislature and the Judiciary, which ultimately
culminated in the evolution of the doctrine of
the Basic Structure of the Constitution.