Doctrine of Eclipse in Indian Constitution | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Understanding the Doctrine of Eclipse

• The Doctrine of Eclipse is a legal concept in India that deals with the interaction between fundamental rights and existing laws that may conflict with them. This doctrine, outlined in Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, addresses the status of laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights.
• When a law contradicts the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, it does not automatically become null and void. Instead, it is said to be in a state of eclipse, meaning that it is overshadowed by fundamental rights.
• According to this doctrine, if a statute is in conflict with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution, the conflicting portion of the law is deemed void. However, the entire law is not invalidated; only the part that clashes with fundamental rights is considered void. The law remains in a dormant state, subject to the discretion of the Parliament.
• Under the Doctrine of Eclipse, while the law remains in force, it cannot be enforced against individuals whose fundamental rights are violated by the law. However, it may still apply to individuals who do not have the same fundamental rights protection. In essence, the doctrine renders the law ineffective and unenforceable in cases where it infringes on fundamental rights.
• To resolve conflicts between laws and fundamental rights, the Constitution allows for amendments. By amending the relevant fundamental right, the eclipse is removed, and the entire law regains its validity and enforceability.

Origin and Development of the Doctrine of Eclipse

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh

• The doctrine of eclipse was formally recognized in the case of Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh in 1955.
• The Supreme Court's decision in this case highlighted the conflict between a state law and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Initially, a provision allowing the state government to monopolize the motor transport business was valid but became void after the Constitution came into effect in 1950.
• An amendment in 1951 authorized the government to establish a monopoly, removing the constitutional flaw.
• During the eclipse period, the law was temporarily suspended due to its conflict with fundamental rights but resumed operation once the impediment was removed.

Keshava Madavan Menon v. State of Bombay (1951)

• In this case, the court emphasized the prospective nature of fundamental rights, which apply from the time of their incorporation into the Constitution.
• The case illustrated that laws passed before the existence of fundamental rights cannot be protected by them.
• Article 13(1) was interpreted as having prospective application unless stated otherwise.

Pannala Binaraj v. Union of India (1957)

• This case reiterated the principle of the prospective application of Article 13(1) unless expressly indicated otherwise.
• It emphasized the importance of clarity in statutes regarding retrospective application.

Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay (1955)

• This case explored the validation of pre-Constitutional laws infringing on fundamental rights.
• The appellant argued for the voidness of a section under the Bombay Prohibition Act, drawing on a previous case.
• The burden of proof in cases involving violations of fundamental rights was clarified.

Application of the Doctrine of the Eclipse to the Indian Penal Code

• Background: In the legal case of P. Rathiram v. Union of India (1994), there was a challenge regarding the constitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes attempts to commit suicide.
• Legal Conflict: The court determined that Section 309 conflicted with Article 19, encompassing rights like freedom of speech and the right to remain silent.
• Rights Assertion: It was argued that Section 309 also clashed with Article 21, which includes the right to life, extending to the right to choose not to live.
• Overturned Ruling: The earlier decision in the Rathiram case was later overruled in the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996).
• Judicial Determination: The court asserted that the right to life under Article 21 does not encompass the right to die by suicide.
• Legal Nullification: Consequently, the previous ruling in the Rathiram case, which had overshadowed Section 309 with fundamental rights, was effectively invalidated by the Gian judgment.

Elements of Doctrine of Eclipse

The Doctrine of Eclipse encompasses several key elements:

• Pre-constitutional law: The Doctrine of Eclipse pertains to laws that were passed before the commencement of the Constitution. These laws are subject to scrutiny under this doctrine. 
• Conflict with fundamental rights: This aspect requires that a law must directly contradict or infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
• Inoperativeness rather than nullity: Under this principle, a law does not become entirely void or null. Instead, it becomes ineffective or unenforceable against individuals whose fundamental rights are violated by that law. 
• Potential for future operativeness: This element highlights that if there is a future amendment to the relevant fundamental right, the previously challenged law automatically regains its operativeness. 

Status of Post Constitutional Law under Article 13

• Article 13(3) of the Indian Constitution prevents the State from passing laws that violate the fundamental rights outlined in Part III.
• If a law enacted by the State contradicts or infringes upon Part III, it is considered ultra vires and void to the extent of such violation.
• A law that goes against fundamental rights is inherently invalid and cannot be revived, even if the constitutional prohibition is later removed.
• To establish the invalidity of post-constitution laws conflicting with fundamental rights, a court declaration is essential.

Doctrine of Eclipse in Post Constitutional Law

• Application of Doctrine: The doctrine of eclipse is relevant to laws that existed before the constitution came into effect.
• Post-Constitutional Laws: In contrast, post-constitutional laws, created after the constitution, have different implications when they contradict fundamental rights.
• Null and Void Nature: According to the case of Deep Chand v. State of U.P., a post-constitutional law conflicting with a fundamental right is considered null and void from the start, termed as a 'stillborn law.'
• Evolution of Interpretation: In the State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills case, the Supreme Court altered its previous stance, recognizing that post-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights may have limited operational aspects in certain situations.
• Varied Consequences: The status and effects of post-constitutional laws conflicting with fundamental rights can differ based on specific circumstances and judicial interpretations.

Exception to Post Constitutional law

• Fundamental rights in the Indian Constitution mainly apply to citizens.
• If a post-constitutional law restricts rights granted by Article 19 of the Constitution, it remains valid for non-citizens.
• Non-citizens do not enjoy the same fundamental rights as citizens, so the law is not nullified.
• Article 13(2) voidness applies only to those whose fundamental rights are violated by the law.
• Non-citizens cannot benefit from Article 13(2) protection as it pertains to citizens' fundamental rights.
• A post-constitutional law diminishing Article 19 rights remains effective for non-citizens.
• Voidness or non-existence of the law only affects citizens whose rights are impacted.

For instance, imagine a scenario where a law is passed restricting freedom of speech, a right guaranteed under Article 19. In this case:

• A citizen affected by the law can challenge its validity under Article 13(2) and seek protection.
• However, a non-citizen does not have the same recourse since they are not covered by Article 13(2).
• Thus, the law remains valid for non-citizens even if it curtails their freedom of speech.

Conclusion

• The doctrine of eclipse validates pre-constitution laws that breach fundamental rights outlined in Part III of the Indian Constitution. Rather than being immediately nullified, these laws are deemed unenforceable only to the extent of their conflict with fundamental rights.
• Subsequently, if Parliament amends the Constitution to eliminate the inconsistency between the existing law and fundamental rights, the eclipse dissipates. The law then becomes operational and enforceable.
• In summary, the doctrine of eclipse temporarily suspends pre-constitution laws violating fundamental rights, with provisions for their reinstatement and validity via constitutional amendments rectifying the inconsistency.