Doctrine of Severability | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Doctrine of Severability

• The doctrine of severability is a crucial legal principle that addresses the constitutionality of laws when some provisions conflict with Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
• When parts of a law violate constitutional rights, courts only strike down those specific sections, not the entire statute. For instance, if a law contains both valid and invalid provisions, the court will only nullify the unconstitutional parts.
• For example, imagine a law that outlaws certain types of speech but also provides funding for public schools. If the funding is independent of the speech restrictions, the court would likely uphold the funding provision while striking down the speech restrictions.
• This doctrine ensures that laws remain valid where possible while removing unconstitutional elements. It is a balancing act between upholding citizens' rights and preserving the functionality of legislation.

Significance and Evolution

• Over time, landmark cases and constitutional amendments have shaped the application of severability in Indian law. This legal concept is essential for upholding the supremacy of the Constitution and ensuring its principles are upheld in legislation.
• For instance, in the Indian context, the doctrine of severability plays a critical role in maintaining the constitutionality of laws in the face of evolving legal challenges.

Application in Indian Legal System

• When a law violates Fundamental Rights, only the offending portions are deemed inconsistent with the Constitution. Courts then separate these unconstitutional elements from the rest of the law, preserving the valid components.
• If the valid and invalid parts are so intertwined that they cannot be separated, the entire law may be declared void. This process safeguards the Constitution's integrity while ensuring that legal frameworks remain functional and just.
• By employing the doctrine of severability, the legal system can strike a balance between protecting citizens' rights and upholding the rule of law.

Landmark Cases on the Doctrine of Severability

The Supreme Court of India has applied the doctrine of severability in various cases to distinguish between valid and invalid parts of laws.

A.K Gopalan vs State of Madras

• In this case, the Court ruled that if a particular section of a law was found to be unconstitutional (section 14 in this instance), it could be removed while leaving the rest of the law intact and effective.
• Example: If a law had ten sections and one of them was deemed unconstitutional, the remaining nine sections would still be valid and enforceable.

D.S Nakara vs Union of India

• Here, the Court identified and nullified the conflicting portion of the law, ensuring that the valid parts could operate independently without being affected by the invalid section.
• Example: Imagine a law consisting of different rules. If one rule contradicted the constitution, the Court could strike down that specific rule while keeping the rest of the law intact.

State of Bombay vs F.N Balsara

• In this instance, the entire law was declared void due to a specific provision, but the other parts of the legal framework remained unaffected and in force.
• Example: If a law had three sections and one section was found to be unconstitutional, only that section would be removed while the other two sections remained valid.

Minerva Mills vs Union of India

• The Court invalidated a specific section of an amendment act for exceeding parliamentary powers, yet upheld the remaining parts of the act as lawful and enforceable.
• Example: If an amendment contained ten clauses and one was deemed beyond the authority of Parliament, the other nine clauses would still be considered valid.

Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachillhu

• In this case, a particular paragraph within the Tenth Schedule was deemed unconstitutional, leading to its removal while preserving the constitutionality of the rest of the schedule.
• Example: If a schedule had multiple paragraphs and one was found to be unconstitutional, only that specific paragraph would be struck down, leaving the others intact.

Key Rules Regarding Severability

• The Court determines if the unconstitutional part of a law can be separated from the valid portion.
• If the valid and invalid sections are inseparable, the entire law is deemed invalid.
• Even if parts are separable, the Court can declare the law unconstitutional if it contradicts the Indian Constitution.
• The judiciary has the authority to nullify unconstitutional acts, which is not a power held by the legislature.
• When assessing the constitutionality of a law, the Court ensures compliance with the Constitution's provisions.

By employing the doctrine of severability, the judiciary ensures that only unconstitutional sections of laws are struck down, preserving the validity of the remaining legal framework and upholding the principles of the Constitution.

Features of Doctrine of Severability

• Applicability: Article 13(1) is relevant to laws conflicting with Fundamental Rights, preventing Legislatures from passing laws that violate these rights. High Courts and the Supreme Court have the authority to assess laws that may breach Fundamental Rights.
• Nature of the Disputed Provision: A provision is only considered void if it contradicts Fundamental Rights. If this contradiction cannot be proven, the concept of severability does not come into play.
• Severability: If a disputed provision conflicts with Fundamental Rights, only that specific part is nullified. The remaining statute remains valid. However, if separating the provision renders the law ineffective as a whole, the entire statute may be invalidated by the court.
• The Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies with the individual who claims a law violates Fundamental Rights. They must show, as seen in the case of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India & Ors., that their rights have been infringed upon. They can also demonstrate immediate harm from a law coming into effect.

Implications of Declaring a Law Unconstitutional

Supreme Court's Decision Impact

• Binding on All Courts: As per Article 141 of the Indian Constitution, when the Supreme Court deems a law unconstitutional, its decision is binding on all courts across India. This establishes a precedent that must be adhered to by all other courts in the nation.
• Judgment in Rem: The Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of a law is considered a "Judgment in rem," meaning it applies universally to all individuals in the country, not just those directly involved in the case. This sets a standard for future cases relating to the same law.

Legal Ramifications

• Precedent for Similar Cases: Any individual seeking legal recourse in an Indian court against the same law is not required to reestablish its unconstitutionality. The Supreme Court's verdict serves as definitive proof, obligating other courts to acknowledge its unconstitutional status.
• Partial Invalidation: In cases where the Supreme Court partially invalidates a law, the nullified section is retroactively considered void. Essentially, it is treated as though it never existed, while the remainder of the law remains enforceable.

Unconstitutionality of Laws in Relation to Non-Citizens

Pre-Constitution Laws and Fundamental Rights

• When the Constitution came into effect, pre-constitution laws inconsistent with fundamental rights were deemed void under Article 13(1).
• This voidness only applied to the extent of the inconsistency with fundamental rights.
• If a fundamental right pertained solely to citizens (e.g., a right under Article 19(1)), the law's invalidity would benefit citizens alone.
• Consequently, even if a law conflicted with a fundamental right, it would still be enforceable against non-citizens.

Distinction Between Ultra Vires and Fundamental Rights Violations

• In the case of a law being ultra vires, it is null and void from the start without any means of rectification.
• However, when a law violates fundamental rights, there is a difference.
• If a competent legislature enacts a law infringing on fundamental rights, it may be valid concerning rights guaranteed only to citizens while being invalid for non-citizens.
• Thus, the status of a law breaching fundamental rights by a competent legislature varies depending on the rights involved.

Exclusions from Article 13(2)

• Taxing statutes are subject to Article 13, which focuses on laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights.
• Laws specified in the Constitution under Articles 105(3), 194(3), and 309 fall under Article 13(2).

Exclusions Based on Specific Constitutional Articles

• Laws made under provisions other than Articles 245-246 are not covered by Article 13(2) to avoid conflicts with other constitutional provisions.
• For example, the Emergency Proclamation under Articles 358-359 is excluded from Fundamental Rights as per Supreme Court decisions.

Constitutional Exclusions

• Article 13 excludes laws falling under Articles 31A-31C and the 9th Schedule of the Constitution.
• These exclusions were incorporated into the Constitution through Amendment Acts.

Constitution Amending Act

• In the context of amending the Constitution, there has been a debate about whether an amendment made under Article 368 needs to fulfill the conditions of Article 13(2) as a "law" under Article 13(3).
• Initially, the Supreme Court, in cases like Shankari Prasad v. Union of India and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, ruled that an Amendment Act passed under Article 368 is not considered a "law" as per Article 13(2). However, this stance was reversed by the majority decision in Golak Nath v. State of Punjab.
• The majority decision in Golak Nath's case was later overridden by the Constitution (24th Amendment) Act, 1971, which introduced clause (4) in Article 13 and clause (1) in Article 368. This amendment clarified that an amendment to the Constitution under Article 368 is not categorized as a "law" under Article 13. It also affirmed that the validity of a Constitution Amendment Act cannot be challenged even if it impacts a fundamental right. The Supreme Court validated this amendment in Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, where it overturned its previous ruling in Golak Nath's case.
• The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, made another attempt to resolve the matter by adding clause (4) in Article 368, proclaiming that no amendment to the Constitution can be questioned in any court on any grounds. However, in Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared that section 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act, which included these clauses, was invalid as it aimed to eliminate a fundamental aspect of the Constitution.
• Subsequent verdicts have clarified that even an Act amending the Constitution under Article 368 is not exempt from judicial scrutiny. Its legitimacy can be challenged based on procedural ultra vires (breach of procedural requirements of Article 368) or if it undermines the "basic structure" of the Constitution. The doctrine of basic structure, introduced by the Supreme Court in Keshavananda Bharati's case on 24th April 1973, is applicable to Amendment Acts passed post that date.

Conclusion

• The doctrine of severability is a crucial legal principle employed to assess the constitutionality of statutes when certain provisions conflict with the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution. In such instances, if a particular provision of a statute is found to infringe upon fundamental rights, the court has the authority to nullify only that specific provision while upholding the validity of the remaining parts of the statute. This approach aims to preserve the constitutionally valid aspects of the law while discarding those that are unconstitutional.
• However, if the invalid provision is so intertwined with the rest of the statute that separating it would render the entire law inoperative, the court may opt to invalidate the entire statute. The onus is on the party challenging the constitutionality of the law to demonstrate that their fundamental rights have been infringed.
• Over time, numerous landmark cases and constitutional amendments have contributed to the development of the doctrine of severability in India. While certain laws are explicitly excluded from the purview of Article 13 of the Constitution, subsequent amendments and judicial rulings have clarified that even constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review, particularly if they undermine the basic structure of the Constitution.