The doctrine is based on the premise that a pre-constitutional law, which existed before the Constitution came into effect on January 26, 1950, cannot be wholly invalidated. Instead, the inconsistency with the fundamental rights causes a temporary eclipse on the law. Once the inconsistency is removed, the shadow lifts, and the law regains its full force.
The doctrine finds its basis in the principle that laws do not cease to exist merely because they are rendered inconsistent with fundamental rights. Instead, they remain dormant and can be revived if the constitutional impediments are lifted. This theory upholds the rule of law while balancing the need to protect fundamental rights.
Doctrine of Eclipse in the Indian Constitution
The Indian Constitution recognizes the Doctrine of Eclipse primarily concerning pre-constitutional laws that are inconsistent with the fundamental rights. According to Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, any law that existed before the commencement of the Constitution and is inconsistent with fundamental rights becomes inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency. However, it does not render the law void in its entirety; it only remains unenforceable against individuals whose fundamental rights are infringed.
In Article 13(2), the doctrine applies to post-constitutional laws, stating that any law made by the state after the commencement of the Constitution, which violates fundamental rights, shall be void to the extent of such contravention. However, the Doctrine of Eclipse is more relevant to pre-constitutional laws rather than post-constitutional laws.
The Indian judiciary has clarified the scope and application of the Doctrine of Eclipse in several landmark judgments:
1. Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955):
This case is a leading authority on the Doctrine of Eclipse. The Supreme Court held that a pre-constitutional law that was inconsistent with fundamental rights was not void ab initio but merely dormant. The Court observed that once the impediment (inconsistency with fundamental rights) is removed, the law becomes operative again. In this case, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1947, which granted the government the right to monopolize motor transport, was held to be inconsistent with Article 19(1)(g). However, after the First Amendment to the Constitution, the impediment was removed, and the law revived.
2. Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959):
In this case, the Supreme Court distinguished between pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws. The Court held that the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws. If a post-constitutional law is inconsistent with fundamental rights, it is void ab initio and cannot be revived.
3. Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963):
The Court reiterated that the Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws. The case involved the U.P. State Legislature enacting a law that violated Article 19(1)(f) (the right to property). The Court held that the law was eclipsed for citizens but remained valid for non-citizens, as they did not enjoy the same fundamental rights.
4. Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay (1951):
The Court clarified that laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights do not cease to exist but remain unenforceable. The Court held that the Doctrine of Eclipse applies to statutes that were valid before the commencement of the Constitution but became inconsistent afterward.
The Doctrine of Eclipse is a unique legal theory that emphasizes the revival of laws once constitutional inconsistencies are removed. It upholds the continuity of law and constitutional supremacy while ensuring the protection of fundamental rights. By recognizing that laws can be temporarily inoperative without being entirely void, the doctrine provides flexibility in the legal system. The Supreme Court of India, through various judgments, has effectively applied this doctrine to strike a balance between protecting fundamental rights and ensuring the enforceability of laws.
