The Doctrine of Eclipse is a legal principle in Indian constitutional law that governs the relationship between existing laws and fundamental rights. If a law was passed before the Constitution’s implementation and later violates fundamental rights (as mentioned in Part III of the Constitution), it does not completely disappear. Instead, it goes inactive, as if it’s hidden or “eclipsed”, which implies that the law still exists but cannot be enforced because the fundamental right takes priority over it.
advertisement
In simpler terms, the Doctrine of Eclipse allows old laws that conflict with new constitutional rights to remain inactive, rather than being permanently removed. Once the conflict is resolved through amendments, the law can “come back to life”. This principle ensures that laws are not completely repealed, but rather put on hold until any constitutional inconsistencies are resolved. The doctrine primarily applies to pre-constitutional laws, or those that existed before the Constitution was adopted in 1950. However, it does not apply to laws enacted after the Constitution went into effect.
This doctrine is linked to Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which addresses laws that conflict with fundamental rights. Article 13(1) says that any law in place before the Constitution that goes against fundamental rights becomes invalid to the extent that it conflicts with them. Article 13(2) states that any new law made after the Constitution that violates fundamental rights is invalid from the time it is passed. This supports the doctrine of severability, where courts can remove only the parts of a law that violate the Constitution while keeping the rest unchanged. Importantly, Article 13(4) states that constitutional amendments are not applicable to Article 13.
advertisement
Impact of the Doctrine of Eclipse on Laws
The Doctrine of Eclipse has major effects for how laws are implemented, particularly when they conflict with Fundamental Rights. The following are some examples to help you understand it practically:
1. Article 254 (2) of the Constitution
Article 254(2) states that if a state law conflicts with a central law, the state law can take precedence if it receives the President's approval. This indicates that the central law is temporarily inactive in that particular state. If the state law is later amended or repealed, the central law will automatically take effect without further action. This principle was clarified in M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, when the Supreme Court stated that a valid law should regain its status once the conflicting state law is removed.
2. Indian Penal Code, Section 309
Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Now repealed in Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023) deals with the attempt to commit suicide. This section was initially declared unconstitutional in Rathinam v. Union of India because the court believed that the right to life included the right to die. However, in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court overruled the decision, stating the validity and reactivating Section 309.
advertisement
3. Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953
This law was challenged in the case of I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab on the grounds that it violated the fundamental right to property. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament did not have the authority to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, putting the law temporarily on hold. However, in a later case, Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India, the court granted Parliament the authority to amend these rights, lifting the covering from Article 368 and allowing the law to be enforced again.
These examples show that the Doctrine of Eclipse does not remove laws permanently. Instead, it puts them into a state of temporary inactivity. Once any conflicts with Fundamental Rights have been resolved, these laws can be revived and enforced.
Key Cases Involving the Doctrine of Eclipse
advertisement
1. Keshavan Madhav Menon vs. State of Bombay (1951)
In this case, Keshavan Madhav Menon was charged under the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act of 1931 with publishing a pamphlet without permission. He claimed that this violated his right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The court ruled that because the law was in effect before the Constitution came into effect, Menon could not claim the rights granted by the Constitution for his actions before its adoption.
2. Behram Khurshid Pesikaka vs. State of Bombay (1955)
Behram Khurshid Pesikaka was charged with drinking and driving under Section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. He argued that the law was invalid because similar laws had previously been declared unconstitutional. The court recognized that the law was not completely void, but rather eclipsed by the Constitution, which meant it could be reactivated later if necessary.
3. Bhikaji Narain Dhakras vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955)
In this landmark case, the petitioners argued that the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 violated their right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g). The Supreme Court ruled that while the law was valid before the Constitution, it was eclipsed (became ineffective) once the Constitution went into effect. The law could be restored if it was amended in accordance with the Constitution.
advertisement
4. State of Gujarat vs. Ambica Mills (1974)
In this case, the Gujarat government enacted the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat Extension and Amendment) Act, which was challenged by non-citizen employer Ambica Mills. The High Court ruled that the Act violated citizen-employees’ fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. The question at hand was whether a non-citizen employer could challenge the law on behalf of citizens. The Supreme Court clarified that, while the law was invalid against citizens whose rights had been violated, it could still apply to non-citizens.
5. Deep Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959)
This case differentiated between pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws regarding the Doctrine of Eclipse. The Supreme Court ruled that a law enacted after the Constitution that violated fundamental rights was void ab initio, which means it was declared unconstitutional from the start. This decision clarified that the doctrine does not apply to post-constitutional laws, which represents a significant shift in how the law is interpreted in the context of fundamental rights.
advertisement
The Connection Between the Doctrine of Eclipse and Constitutional Amendments
The Doctrine of Eclipse has significance to understanding how older laws relate to constitutional amendments in India. Here’s a simple explanation:
- Understanding Eclipse: When a law that existed prior to the Constitution conflicts with fundamental rights, it is “eclipsed”. This does not mean that the law has been completely removed; rather, it cannot be enforced until the conflict is resolved.
- Role of Constitutional Amendments: Fundamental rights can be changed or clarified through constitutional amendments. When this happens, previously eclipsed laws can be restored. This means the law can be reestablished if it is consistent with the new constitutional framework.
- Revival of Laws: If a constitutional amendment resolves the conflict, the law can be reintroduced. This is significant because it allows older laws to become relevant again if they meet current constitutional standards.
- Supreme Court Interpretation: The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that constitutional amendments have a direct impact on the status of eclipsed laws. If an amendment addresses the issues that caused the law to become inactive, it may regain its effectiveness.
- Significance: This relationship ensures that the legal system is adaptable. Instead of permanently removing outdated laws, the Doctrine of Eclipse allows them to be temporarily suspended. With the appropriate amendments, these laws can be restored, allowing the legal framework to evolve while still protecting fundamental rights.
advertisement
Criticisms of the Doctrine of Eclipse
The Doctrine of Eclipse has several criticisms, including:
- Confusion: It can be difficult to determine which laws are “eclipsed” and how they can be revived, resulting in uncertainty about legal rights and responsibilities.
- **Limited Application: **The doctrine only applies to laws enacted before the Constitution. This means that some outdated laws may still exist and be in conflict with fundamental rights.
- Risk of Misuse: Lawmakers may use the doctrine to maintain existing laws rather than address fundamental rights, potentially leading to abuse.
- Conflict with Article 13: The doctrine may lead to inconsistencies with Article 13, which states that laws that violate fundamental rights should be declared invalid. This can cause confusion in legal interpretation.
- Effect on Rights: The doctrine allows laws that violate fundamental rights to remain inactive, which may compromise those rights if not addressed over time.
advertisement
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Which article of the Indian Constitution is related to the Doctrine of Eclipse?
**Article 13(1) **of the Indian Constitution refers to the Doctrine of Eclipse. It means that any law enacted before the Constitution must be consistent with the fundamental rights outlined in Part III.
Can an eclipsed law be revived?
Yes, if the law is amended in accordance with fundamental rights, it can be reinstated and enforced.
Is the Doctrine of Eclipse applicable to new laws?
No, this principle only applies to laws passed before the Constitution was implemented in 1950. New laws that violate fundamental rights are declared void (not legally binding) from their inception.
advertisement
References
- The Constitution of India
- The Doctrine of Eclipse in Constitutional Law: A Critical Reappraisal of its Contemporary Scope and Relevance
- Doctrine of Eclipse in the Indian Constitution
Written by Aditya Porwal
Aditya Porwal is a second-year B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad. He has interned with prominent law firms and corporate entities, authored multiple legal publications, and is currently exploring various aspects of law through diverse experiences.
advertisement
Further Reading
advertisement
