Analysis of Doctrine of Severability under Constitutional Law | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• The doctrine of severability, also known as the doctrine of separability, deals with the idea that a law is only void to the extent of its inconsistency or contravention with other legal provisions.
• According to this doctrine, if a part of a provision conflicts with existing laws, only that specific part is considered void while the rest remains valid and enforceable.
• In cases where a provision contains both valid and invalid components connected by words like "and" or "or," and the valid part can stand alone without the invalid part, the doctrine allows for the valid portion to be upheld.
• However, if a provision is so intertwined that the valid and invalid parts cannot be separated, the entire provision is deemed void.
• It is crucial to note that when determining the validity of a law, the court evaluates the specific conflicting part rather than declaring the entire statute void.

The Evolution of the Doctrine of Severability

• The doctrine of severability finds its roots in contract law, where it states that if a part of a contract is deemed illegal or unenforceable, the rest of the contract remains valid.
• Historically, the concept of severability can be traced back centuries, with early discussions in countries like the UK, Australia, and the United States.
• In the US, the doctrine was first addressed in the case of United States v. Reese in 1876, establishing the principle of non-severability when removing certain provisions would alter the original intent of the law.
• A pivotal moment in the development of severability occurred in 1932 in Champlin Refining Co. v. Corp. Commission of Oklahoma, where the Supreme Court ruled that the unconstitutionality of a part of a statute does not invalidate the entire statute.
• In 2006, the US Supreme Court outlined three key principles of severability in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng, emphasizing minimal judicial interference with legislative intent.
• The application of the doctrine of severability has since expanded globally, reaching countries like Malaysia, as seen in the case of Malaysian Bar and Anr. v. Government of Malaysia.
• In India, Article 13 of the Indian Constitution governs the doctrine of severability, allowing for the striking down of laws that conflict with fundamental rights.
• The case of R.M.D.C. v. Union of India in India provided further clarity on severability, emphasizing the importance of legislative intent in determining the validity of statutes.

Key Concepts

• Severability in statutory interpretation is a crucial concept that determines the validity of a statute's provisions.
• Legislative intent serves as the lodestar in the analysis of severability, according to the case of InGubienzio-Ortiz v. Kanahale.
• However, critics argue that severability should not be solely based on legislative intent but should also consider general principles of statutory construction.
• When a statute includes a severability or non-severability clause, such a clause should be interpreted literally.

Literal Interpretation

• During the construction of a statute, the literal interpretation holds paramount importance.
• Any absurdity within a clause or provision of the statute triggers a presumption that may lead to the application of severability.

Application of Severability

• Severability becomes relevant when there is a presumption of absurdity within a statute's provisions.
• It allows for the removal of unconstitutional or invalid parts of a law while leaving the rest intact.

Illustrative Example

• For instance, if a statute contains a provision that is found to be unconstitutional, the principle of severability enables the court to strike down that particular provision while upholding the remainder of the law.

Landmark Judgements

Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company Ltd

The House of Lords deliberated on the Doctrine of Severability. It was established that this doctrine could be utilized to separate the unreasonable portion of an agreement. The case involved a dispute between Nordenfelt and Maxim concerning an agreement on armaments. Nordenfelt contested the agreement, which included clauses preventing him from competing with Maxim for 25 years.

Lindsley v. National Carbonic Gas Co.

This case introduced a significant legal principle concerning the doctrine of severability.
The court outlined three key aspects:

• A classification with a reasonable basis is not inherently invalid, even if it results in some inequality.
• When analyzing such a classification, if there exists any conceivable set of facts that could justify it, those facts are assumed to be present at the time of enacting the law.
• Those challenging the classification must demonstrate that it lacks a reasonable basis and is essentially arbitrary.

Ak Gopalan v. State Of Madras

The Supreme Court applied the doctrine by upholding the validity of preventive detention without section 14. Omitting this section did not invalidate the remaining provisions of the Act.

D.S Nakara v. Union Of India

The Supreme Court ruled that an Act could remain valid even after severing invalid provisions.

Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu

Commonly referred to as the defection case, this instance involved the court deeming a specific paragraph unconstitutional while maintaining the validity of the remaining paragraphs of the tenth schedule.

Critical Analysis

When applying the doctrine of severability, it is crucial to consider legislative intent and public interest. The doctrine serves as a corrective tool to rectify errors in laws and ensure a balance between legislative action, tradition, and contemporary needs.

Conclusion

The doctrine of severability remains a vital legal concept globally. It safeguards valid provisions within statutes and allows courts to assess the impact of invalid clauses on the overall legislation.