Introduction
Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution asserts the doctrine of eclipse. Article 13 stipulates that any law enacted prior to the constitution’s inception must be in accordance with Part III of the Indian Constitution. Any statute that is in conflict with the provisions of Part III of the Indian Constitution would be declared null and void. At the same time, such a statue will not be considered dead, but will remain in a dormant state until it is abolished by Parliament.
As a result, any law enacted previous to independence that violates or conflicts with the Fundamental Rights shall be declared null and void up to the point of incompatibility. It does not render the entire law null and void, but it does render the section of the law that is in conflict with Part III of the Indian Constitution null and void. The law is not dead, but it will be in a dormant state and will be available to parliament.
Meaning
Any law that is incompatible with fundamental rights is not invalid, according to the Doctrine of Eclipse. It isn’t completely dead, but it has been eclipsed by the fundamental right. Constitutional amendment can resolve the contradiction (conflict). The eclipse will be removed by amending the applicable fundamental right, and the entire statute will become valid.
Meaning and Applicability of the Doctrine of Eclipse
This doctrine’s theory is described in the context of Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which lays out four criteria for applying Fundamental Rights[1]. Art. 13 deals with laws that are in conflict with or violate the Fundamental Rights. It goes like this:
“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.
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.
In the Article, unless the context otherwise requires:
“Law” includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;
“Laws in force” include laws passed or made by a legislation or other of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.”[2]
The following are the main aspects of this doctrine, as stated in the preceding provision:
- The theory of eclipse is only relevant in circumstances involving pre-constitutional laws that have now become active as a result of the Constitution’s implementation.
- The idea does not apply to post-constitutional legislation because they have been in effect since their origin and cannot be overturned by any subsequent amendment.
- Only when pre-constitutional laws conflict with FR are they considered to be overtaken by FR.
- The challenged law is simply ineffective for the time being, thus it is not null and void from the start.
- Any comparable revision to the relevant FR will restore the constitutionality of the challenged law.
In this way, the Doctrine of Eclipse safeguards the FRs’ dormancy as stipulated in Art. 13. Because the concept is prospective in nature, it will only apply to pre-constitutional laws and not to laws enacted after January 26, 1950, as required by Article 13. (2). In the case of Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court declared that post-constitutional laws violate the FR but are not dead. They are just void and stillborn from the start.[3]
Furthermore, the Supreme Court determined that section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act is in breach of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution in the landmark case of A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras[4]. The court decided that only section 14 of the act, not the entire legislation, should be set down in this case.
The Eclipse Doctrine’s Evolution
The Doctrine of Eclipse evolved in three stages, as a result of three important rulings in the Indian Constitution:
Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay[5]
This is one of the early examples in which the plausible connection between Article 13 (1) and the Pre-Constitutional Laws was explored. In this case, the appellant was a suspected offender under Section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The appellant argued that the F.N. Balsara case[6], in which Section 13(b) of the same act was deemed to be in violation of Art 19(1)(f) and declared void, should be considered as precedent. The Court found only a portion of the clause to be unconstitutional and unlawful, not the entire law.
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The philosophy of this doctrine has been very clearly articulated by the Honble Supreme Court in this case that led to its origin in the post-constitutional period. The factual circumstance was that Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was changed by two pre-constitutional statutes, namely the Berar Motor Vehicles and Central Provinces (Amendment) Act, 1947, resulting in the application of the concept of eclipse and the act being declared unenforceable.
Furthermore, the 1951 Constitutional Amendment in Art 19(1)(6) enabled the state to conduct business, reversing the eclipse and making the act’s provisions applicable to both citizens and non-citizens. This impact was questioned, and when the case reached the Supreme Court, it was decided that the challenged legislation had been overshadowed by the FR for the time being.
“The effect of the amendment was to remove the shadow and to make the impugned act free from all blemish or infirmity”.[7]
Keshav Madhavan Menon v. State of Bombay[8]
The dispute centred on whether Article 13 (1) is prospective or retroactive in character. In terms of the circumstances, the petitioner was charged under the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931, for printing a booklet without first obtaining permission, and he argued that the provisions of the Press Act violated his FR under Art 19 (1). (a). The lawsuit was still ongoing when the Constitution was written. The Supreme Court affirmed the violation, ruling that FR is presumptively prospective.
Landmark Case Laws
Since the Indian Constitution was adopted, the theory of eclipse has evolved via many Supreme Court judgments and is still used in many constitutional disputes today. One thing to keep in mind is that the legitimacy of Article 368 has always been a point of contention, with FR casting a pall over it in many situations.
The first case is Golaknath v. State of Punjab[9], in which a petition was brought under Article 32 of the Constitution contesting the Punjab Act, 1953 as violating the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Article 14 and Article 19 (f) & (g) of the Constitution (g). The Supreme Court ruled that the parliament does not have the authority to limit the constitution’s established basic rights, and that any modification to the FR must be constitutional. Article 368 was obliterated as a result of this ruling.
Second, in Shankari Prasad v. UOI[10], the Supreme Court elaborated on the constitutional legitimacy of the 1951 first amendment, which restricted people’ right to property. According to the Supreme Court, the right to modify the constitution under Art. 368 includes the power to amend the FR as well. Furthermore, the term “law” in Article 13(8) relates exclusively to regular laws enacted under legislative authority, not to constitutional amendments enacted under constituent authority. As a result, even if a constitutional amendment violates the FR, it is presumed to be legitimate.
Even though the country’s Parliament is not supreme, it currently has the ability to change the constitution without affecting its fundamental framework. As a result, the basic rights are also approachable, and the gloom surrounding Article 368 is lifted.[11]
Post Constitutional law
Article 13(3) prevents the state from enacting legislation that deprives or restricts the rights granted by Part III of the constitution, i.e., basic rights. If the state enacts legislation that is inconsistent with or infringes on Part 3 of the constitution, it will be deemed ultra vires and void to the degree that it violates basic rights.
It is a dormant legislation that cannot be resurrected by removing the constitutional restriction by a future constitutional amendment. Though post-constitutional measures that violate basic rights are null and invalid from the start. It will be required for the court to declare them void.
Exception to post Constitutional law
Because non-citizens do not have basic rights, a post-constitutional legislation that takes away, abridges, or infringes on the right given by Article 19 of the Indian Constitution will be applied to them. Because citizens are the only ones who have fundamental rights, such a legislation will become void or non-existent against them. The voidness referred to in Article 13(2) can only be applied to those whose basic rights have been taken away or abridged by law. It is not available to non-citizens.
Conclusion
The doctrine of eclipse is extremely important in India because it aims to protect pre-constitutional legislation from being entirely obliterated from the statute books in terms of their application. It exemplifies both the rule of law and constitutional philosophy.
The theory is extremely well balanced to give maximum impact to the provisions and maintain justice, notwithstanding the thin line difference between pre-constitutional and post-constitutional legislation. The idea minimises wasting of important time and resources that may occur in the re-enactment of legislations since it makes no compromises on the administrative and legislative functions of the country.
References:
[1] INDIAN CONST. art. 13.
[2] Ibid
[3] AIR 1980 SC 633.
[4] AIR 1950 SC 27.
[5] AIR 1955 SC 123.
[6] AIR 1951 SC 318.
[7] 1955 AIR 781.
[8] 1951 AIR 128.
[9] 1967 AIR 1643.
[10] AIR 1951 SC 455.
[11] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
0 Comments