Doctrine of Eclipse

Doctrine of Eclipse

In the case of Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay[1], the law in question was an existing law at the time when the Constitution came into force. That existing law imposed on the exercise of the right guaranteed to the citizens of India by article 19(1)(g) restrictions which could not be justified as reasonable under clause (6) as it then stood and consequently under article 13(1)[2] that existing law became void “to the extent of such inconsistency”.

The court said that the law became void not in toto or for all purposes or for all times or for all persons but only “to the extent of such inconsistency”, that is to say, to the extent it became inconsistent with the provisions of Part III which conferred the fundamental rights on the citizens.

This reasoning was also adopted in the case of Bhikaji Narain Dhakras And Others v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Another[3]. This case also held that “on and after the commencement of the Constitution, theexisting law, as a result of its becoming inconsistent with the provisions of article 19(1)(g) read with clause (6) as it then stood, could not be permitted to stand in the way of the exercise of that fundamental right. Article 13(1) by reason of its language cannot be read as having obliterated the entire operation of the inconsistent law or having wiped it out altogether the statute, book. Such law existed for all past transactions and for enforcement of rights and liabilities accrued before the date of the Constitution. The law continued in force, even after the commencement of the Constitution, with respect to persons who were not citizens and could not claim the fundamental right”
The court also said that article 13(1) had the effect of nullifying or rendering the existing law which had become inconsistent with fundamental right as it then stood, ineffectual, nugatory and devoid of any legal force or binding effect, only with respect to the exercise of the fundamental right on and after the date of the commencement of the Constitution. Finally the court said something that we today know of as the crux of Doctrine of Eclipse.

“The true position is that the impugned lawbecame, as it were, eclipsed, for the time being, by the fundamental right.”

We see that such laws are not dead for all purposes. They exist for the purposes of pre-Constitution rights and liabilities and they remain operative, even after the commencement of the Constitution, as against non-citizens. It is only as against the citizens that they remain in a dormant or moribund condition.

Thus the Doctrine of Eclipse provides for the validation of Pre-Constitution Laws that violate fundamental rights upon the premise that such laws are not null and void ab initiobut become unenforceable only to the extent of such inconsistency with the fundamental rights. If any subsequent amendment to the Constitution removes the inconsistency or the conflict of the existing law with the fundamental rights, then the Eclipse vanishes and that particular law again becomes active again.

[1] [1961] S.C.R. 288.

[2] Article 13 (1) – 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.

[3] AIR 1955 SC 781.