April 21, 2023

Doctrine of Eclipse

This article has been written by Ms. Aadya Sharma, a 3rd year BBA.LLB (Hons) student from Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University Lucknow.

INTRODUCTION

The Doctrine of Eclipse is a legal principle embodied under Article 13 of the Constitution of India. The Doctrine of Eclipse states that if any law is inconsistent or contradictory with the fundamental rights of the citizens then it does not mean that it will become invalid or inoperative completely. That law can still become valid or operative through amendments in the Constitution of India, 1950. When the Constitution of India was adopted, there were a number of laws in effect, some of which directly contradicted with fundamental rights; therefore, the Supreme Court developed a number of principles/doctrines, one of which was the Doctrine of Eclipse, to determine the constitutionality of these laws. At that time, it was unavoidable that all Indian laws would be evaluated for legitimacy using the constitution as the yardstick. However, the Drafting Committee established in Article 13 a clear guarantee of the justiciability of fundamental rights.

INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 13

Article 13 reads as –

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 Part, 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

(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires law includes any Ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law; 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or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas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 Right of Equality

Article 13(1) (Pre-Independence Laws) It states that all laws which are in force within the territory of India immediately before the start of this Constitution, shall be considered void to the extent of inconsistency of the all the provisions of Part III of the Constitution.

Clause (2)(Post-Independence Laws) It states that the State shall not make any new law that violates fundamental rights and if any law is made in contravention of this provision shall be considered null and void to the extent of the contravention. This clause protects citizen’s fundamental rights from being taken away or restricted by the State.

Clause (3)(a) includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom, or usage. In essence, the Clause does not list every statute that infringes on fundamental rights, but it does include all of them.

Clause (3)(b) states Before the start of this Constitution, laws passed or made by the legislature or another competent body in the Indian subcontinent that have not yet been repealed. It is equivalent to the definition of “existing law” in Article 372 of the Indian Constitution.

Clause (4) states that Nothing in article 13(2) shall apply to any amendment of the Constitution adopted pursuant to article 368, This indicates that legislation passed to amend the Constitution are exempt from the restriction outlined in article 13(2) even if they restrict or eliminate fundamental rights. The courts have, however, ruled that constitutional changes that eliminate or curtail fundamental rights must withstand the “reasonable restrictions” as laid down in the Article 19 and other articles of the Indian Constitution.

DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE

According to Doctrine of Eclipse, any law which is in contradiction with fundamental rights are not null or void ab initio, but actually it becomes unenforceable, i.e, stays in a moribound state. “It is over-shadowed by the fundamental rights and remains dormant; but it is not dead.” (Bhikaji Narayan v. State of M.P., AIR 1955 SC 781). These laws are not completely removed from the statute book. They still persist for all previous transactions. A Constitutional amendment could bring this statute back to life and make it operative. The time period during which such laws are overshadowed is the time taken by the Parliament to amend that law as required so that it can be put into effect. This doctrine defends Indian citizens’ rights. The Non-citizens don’t have any fundamental rights. Therefore, it is assumed that non-citizens would not have access to the doctrine. This Doctrine was first used in the case of Bhikaji Narayan v. State of M.P,1955.

The elements of this Doctrine are –

  • The legislation should relate to Pre – Constitutional laws.
  • Laws that are subject to the doctrine of an eclipse do not lose their validity during that time; rather, they continue to be valid.
  • It must contravene the Fundamental Rights.
  • After the law has been amended to remove its impurities, the law will take effect.

The Doctrine of eclipse does not apply to Post-Constitutional laws unlike Doctrine of Severability which is applicable to both pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws. However, the Supreme Court has applied this doctrine once with respect to Article 368 of the Indian Constitution which is a Post Constitutional Law. In the Case of Gorak Nath, the Indian parliament was eroding the fundamental liberties by amending the Indian constitution. The Supreme Court used the doctrine of eclipse in relation to Article 368 to temporarily suspend the legislature’s ability to violate basic rights. Article 368 of the Indian Constitution was therefore superseded. Therefore, it is clear that the court has also applied the eclipse concept to post-constitutional laws. But by law, we assert that this theory only applies to pre-constitutional legislation or laws that adhere to the requirements of Article 13 (1).

CASE LAWS

  1. Bhikaji Narayan v. State of M.P., AIR 1955 SC 781 – This is the landmark case with respect to Doctrine of Eclipse. The Constitutional validity of C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947  was challenged, After which the Motor Vehicles  Act, 1939 was amended. The petitioners argued that the Amendment Act was nullified by the adoption of the Indian Constitution because it violated Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the right to practise any profession and to engage in any occupation, trade, or business. 

The petitioners claimed that the Amendment had violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by the 1950 Indian Constitution by allowing the Provincial Government to establish a monopoly on the state’s motor transportation industry. 

The respondents argued that although the Act initially violated the Indian Constitution, the inconsistencies were eliminated by the addition of Article 19(6) and the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act became operational once more following the passage of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, and Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955. In their answer, the petitioners unequivocally claimed that the Act was no longer valid in accordance with Article 13(1) and that it should be regarded as dead unless re-enacted again.

However, the petitioner’s assertions were disproved, and the respondents’ arguments were accepted.

  1. Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959)In this case, it was held that the Doctrine of Eclipse cannot apply to Post-Constitutional laws. It was said that no post-constitutional laws that violate Part III of the Indian Constitution can be made and that any such laws that are made are void ab initio even though pre-constitutional laws still exist to the extent that they conflict with rights granted by that Part.
  2. P. Rathiram v. Union of India (1994) In this case, Section 309 of Indian Penal Code,1860 i.e., punishment for attempts to commit suicide was challenged. It was held that this section violates Article 19 which grants the right to silence in addition to the freedom of speech. Additionally, it was claimed this also violated Article 21, which, extrapolating from it, also granted the right to death. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab,1996 this was deemed to be an invalid finding. Thus, in essence, Section 309 had been eclipsed or superseded by the Rathiram case with respect to fundamental rights, which was eliminated by the Gian decision.

CONCLUSION

Thus, the doctrine of eclipse can be applied relatively simply. By allowing for Constitutional changes, it can defend laws that violate fundamental rights that were passed before the Constitution, but it cannot defend laws that were passed after the Constitution. This is due to the distinct statutes that pre- and post-Constitutional laws have under Article 13. This concept provides for preserving pre-Constitutional laws that were unconstitutional, from being repealed in extraordinary situations by setting those laws dormant until they can be revived in the future. It is the best strategy to protect such regulations that are crucial for Indian citizens.

REFERENCES

  1. Article 13 of Constitution of India, 1950
  2. Article 19 of Constitution of India, 1950
  3. Article 19(1) (g) of Constitution of India, 1950
  4. Article 19(6) of Constitution of India, 1950
  5. Article 368 of Constitution of India, 1950
  6. Article 372 of Constitution of India, 1950
  7. Section 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
  8. C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947
  9. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
  10. Bhikaji Narayan v. State of M.P., AIR 1955 SC 781
  11. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab,1996
  12. Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959)
  13. P. Rathiram v. Union of India (1994)
  14. https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-eclipse-a-comprehensive-analysis/#Origin_and_evolution_of_the_doctrine_of_eclipse
  15. https://legalstudymaterial.com/doctrine-of-eclipse/
  16. The Doctrine of Eclipse in Constitutional Law: A Critical Reappraisal of its Contemporary Scope and Relevance
  17. Dr. J.N. PANDEY’S CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA  : FIFTY EIGHTH EDITION

Aishwarya Says:

Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.

IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening

Related articles