Difference Between the Doctrine of Eclipse and Severability
Introduction
What happens when a law partially
violates fundamental rights? Should the entire law be struck down, or can only
the unconstitutional part be removed? The Doctrine of Eclipse and
the Doctrine of Severability answer these questions by
providing legal principles to handle unconstitutional laws under the Indian
Constitution.
Both doctrines play a crucial
role in constitutional interpretation, ensuring that laws remain valid
while protecting fundamental rights. While the Doctrine of Eclipse applies
only to pre-constitutional laws that contradict fundamental
rights, the Doctrine of Severability allows courts to remove
unconstitutional portions from a law while keeping the rest intact.
This article explores both
doctrines, their key differences, landmark cases, and real-life applications in
Indian constitutional law.
Understanding the Doctrine of
Eclipse
What is the Doctrine of
Eclipse?
The Doctrine of Eclipse states
that if a pre-constitutional law (a law enacted before January
26, 1950) violates fundamental rights, it does not become completely
void. Instead, it remains inactive or eclipsed and
can become valid again if the constitutional conflict is removed.
Key Features of the Doctrine
of Eclipse
-
Applies Only to Pre-Constitutional Laws –
It does not apply to post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights.
-
Law Becomes Dormant, Not Void –
The unconstitutional law does not completely disappear but remains in the
background.
-
Can Be Revived – If the constitutional
inconsistency is removed (e.g., by an amendment), the law becomes
effective again.
-
Fundamental Rights Are Supreme –
Until the conflict is resolved, fundamental rights take precedence over the
law.
Example of the Doctrine of
Eclipse
🔹 Bhikaji Narain
Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) – In this case, the Supreme
Court ruled that a pre-constitutional law that became unconstitutional
due to Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Freedom of Trade) was not void. However,
after a constitutional amendment removed the conflict, the law became
valid again.
Understanding the Doctrine of
Severability
What is the Doctrine of
Severability?
The Doctrine of
Severability, also known as the Doctrine of Separability,
states that if only a part of a law is unconstitutional,
the rest of the law can still remain valid, provided the
unconstitutional portion can be removed without affecting the entire
statute.
Key Features of the Doctrine
of Severability
-
Applies to Both Pre- and
Post-Constitutional Laws – Courts can use this doctrine to remove
unconstitutional portions from both old and new laws.
-
Only the Unconstitutional Part is
Removed – If a law has some valid and some invalid provisions,
only the invalid parts are struck down, and the rest remains
enforceable.
-
The Remaining Law Must Make Sense –
If removing the unconstitutional part makes the entire law meaningless,
then the whole law may be struck down.
Example of the Doctrine of
Severability
🔹 R.M.D.
Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957) – The Supreme Court ruled
that if an unconstitutional section of a law can be
removed without affecting the rest of the Act, then only that
portion will be struck down, keeping the rest of the law valid.
Key Differences Between the
Doctrine of Eclipse and Severability
|
Aspect |
Doctrine of Eclipse |
Doctrine of Severability |
|
Applicability |
Applies only to pre-constitutional laws |
Applies to both pre-
and post-constitutional laws |
|
Effect on the Law |
The unconstitutional law
is not void but remains inactive (eclipsed) |
The unconstitutional part of
the law is removed, but the rest remains valid |
|
Possibility of Revival |
The law can become valid
again if the constitutional conflict is removed |
Once a part is removed, the
remaining law continues, but the removed portion does not revive |
|
Judicial Action |
The court does not
strike down the law but holds it inoperative until the issue is
resolved. |
The court actively
removes the unconstitutional portion of the law |
|
Landmark Case |
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v.
State of MP (1955) |
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957) |
Landmark Cases on Eclipse and
Severability
Cases on the Doctrine of
Eclipse
- Bhikaji Narain Dhakras
v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) – Pre-constitutional laws violating
Article 19 can remain inactive but can be revived if the constitutional barrier
is removed.
- State of Gujarat v.
Ambica Mills (1974) – Reinforced that only pre-constitutional
laws can be subject to the Doctrine of Eclipse.
Cases on the Doctrine of
Severability
- A.K. Gopalan v. State
of Madras (1950) – The Supreme Court applied severability to
remove unconstitutional provisions from a detention law, keeping the valid
sections intact.
- Kihoto Hollohan v.
Zachillhu (1992) – The court struck down part of the Tenth
Schedule related to judicial review but kept the rest of the
anti-defection law valid.
Real-Life Applications of
These Doctrines
Example 1: The Right to
Property (Doctrine of Eclipse)
- Before the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978), the Right to Property was a fundamental right.
- After the amendment, it was downgraded to a legal right, removing the constitutional conflict for laws restricting property rights.
- Laws that were previously eclipsed due
to violating fundamental rights became valid again after
the change.
Example 2: The Aadhaar Act
(Doctrine of Severability)
- The Supreme Court removed unconstitutional
parts of the Aadhaar Act, such as mandatory Aadhaar for
bank accounts, but retained the valid sections.
Conclusion
Both the Doctrine of
Eclipse and the Doctrine of Severability are vital
tools in constitutional interpretation that help maintain the balance
between legal continuity and fundamental rights.
- The Doctrine of Eclipse ensures
that pre-constitutional laws violating fundamental rights
are not completely void but only inoperative until a
constitutional change allows their revival.
- The Doctrine of
Severability allows courts to strike down unconstitutional
sections of a law while keeping the rest enforceable,
preventing unnecessary invalidation of entire statutes.
Together, these doctrines play a
crucial role in ensuring that laws evolve with constitutional values
while maintaining legal stability.
.png)
FAQs
1. What is the main difference
between the Doctrine of Eclipse and the Doctrine of Severability?
The Doctrine of Eclipse applies
only to pre-constitutional laws and holds them inactive if
they violate fundamental rights, while the Doctrine of Severability applies
to all laws and removes only the unconstitutional parts.
2. Can a law under the
Doctrine of Eclipse be revived?
Yes, a law under Eclipse
can become valid again if the constitutional conflict is
removed, such as through an amendment.
3. Does the Doctrine of
Severability apply to post-constitutional laws?
Yes, it applies to both
pre- and post-constitutional laws, allowing courts to remove
unconstitutional portions while keeping the rest valid.
4. Which case is the best
example of the Doctrine of Eclipse?
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) is a landmark case illustrating
the Doctrine of Eclipse.
5. Why is the Doctrine of
Severability important?
It ensures that only unconstitutional parts of a law are removed, preventing the unnecessary invalidation of entire statutes.
0 Comments