Let’s read an article on Doctrine of Eclipse with all landmark case laws.

Introduction

The doctrine of eclipse is important in the Indian legal system, especially regarding laws that existed before the Constitution and how they relate to fundamental rights. This doctrine offers a nuanced way to address conflicts between old laws and the fundamental rights established by the Constitution. Article 13 of the Indian Constitution is central to understanding this relationship and the application of the doctrine of eclipse.

The idea behind the doctrine of eclipse is that any law that conflicts with fundamental rights doesn’t become completely void. Instead, it’s considered void only to the extent that it conflicts with those rights.

Meaning

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution deals with the relationship between pre-Constitution laws and fundamental rights. According to clause (1) of Article 13, all pre-Constitution or existing laws that were in force before the Constitution commencement are void to the extent that they conflict with fundamental rights from the date the Constitution began. This means these laws aren’t entirely invalid from the start but become void only after the Constitution comes into effect.

Understanding of Article 13

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution consists of two key clauses that address the validity of laws:-

1. Article 13  Clause (1) states that all pre-Constitution or existing laws that are inconsistent with the fundamental rights shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency.
2. Article 13  Clause (2) prohibits the state from making any law that takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution. Any law made in violation of this clause is invalid from the very beginning.

Doctrine of Eclipse

The doctrine of eclipse deals with laws that violate fundamental rights. These laws are not considered completely null or void from the start but are merely unenforceable, meaning they are inactive rather than eliminated. Such laws are not entirely removed from the statute books; they still apply to past transactions, the enforcement of rights acquired and liabilities incurred before the Constitution, and individuals not granted fundamental rights, like non-citizens.

 Explanation with an Example – Suppose there is a pre-constitutional law that restricts freedom of speech, which is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. After the Constitution came into force, this law would be inoperative to the extent that it violates Article 19(1)(a). However, if at a later date, Article 19(1)(a) is amended to allow for such restrictions, the law would be revived and become operative again.

Prospective Nature of Article 13

Article 13(1) is prospective in nature, meaning that any pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with fundamental rights become void only after the commencement of the Constitution, not retroactively. These laws remain valid for actions taken before the Constitution’s commencement, and a judicial declaration of invalidity is necessary to render them void.

Keshava Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay

In Keshava Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay, the Supreme Court observed that there is no fundamental right protecting individuals from prosecution and punishment for offenses committed before the Constitution came into force. The petitioner argued that the Act was inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and thus void. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 13(1) could not be applied retrospectively. The Court emphasized that fundamental rights became operative only from the Constitution’s commencement date, affecting only future actions.

Bhikaji vs. State of M.P.

The Supreme Court created the doctrine of eclipse to address a specific issue in the case of Bhikaji v. State of M.P. A provision of the C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947, became invalid when the Constitution was enacted because it conflicted with Article 19(1)(g). However, a 1951 amendment to Article 19(6) allowed the government to monopolize any business. The Supreme Court ruled that this amendment removed the conflict, making the previously invalid law valid again. The law, which had been overshadowed by the fundamental rights, became effective once the constitutional issue was resolved. The law starts to operate again from the date the obstacle is removed.

Doctrine of Eclipse to Post-Constitutional Laws

Although the doctrine of eclipse mainly applies to laws from before the Constitution, the judiciary has also considered its relevance to post-Constitution laws. Article 13(2) prevents the state from creating laws that infringe on rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. Such laws are invalid from the start. Unlike pre-Constitution laws, post-Constitution laws that conflict with fundamental rights are void from the beginning and cannot be revived by later constitutional amendments.

Deep Chand v. State of U.P.

In the case of Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959), the Supreme Court decided that a post-Constitution law violating fundamental rights is void from the outset and cannot be revived by any subsequent constitutional amendment.

State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills

In the Supreme Court case, State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974), Clause (2) of Article 13 states that the government cannot create laws that take away or reduce the rights granted by Part III of the Constitution. Such laws are invalid and void from the start. Unlike laws made before the Constitution, any post-Constitution laws that conflict with fundamental rights are null from the beginning and cannot be revived by later constitutional amendments.

Dulare Lodh v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur

In Dulare Lodh v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of eclipse to post-Constitutional laws against citizens. A statutory amendment revived and made enforceable a decree that had become dormant due to a subsequent legal bar. This shows that while the doctrine typically applies to pre-Constitution laws, it can also apply to post-Constitution laws in certain situations, allowing rights that were previously unenforceable to become effective again once the obstacle is removed.

Conclusion

The doctrine of eclipse in the Indian Constitution offers a sophisticated way to handle the complexities of laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights. It ensures that laws are not entirely nullified but can be revived and become operative once the constitutional impediment is removed. While pre-Constitution laws remain valid until declared void due to inconsistency with fundamental rights, post-Constitution laws are null from inception if they contravene these rights. The doctrine of eclipse provides a nuanced approach, ensuring that laws overshadowed by fundamental rights can revive under certain conditions, maintaining a balance between legal continuity and constitutional supremacy.