Bishwanath Prasad v Dwarka Prasad (1974 SC)
🧾 Case: Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v. Dwarka Prasad Sharma (1974)
Citation: AIR 1977 SC 1913; 1976 SCR (2) 516
Court: Supreme Court of India
Significance: Clarified the Doctrine of Eclipse and principles regarding constitutionality of pre-constitutional laws in relation to Fundamental Rights.
1. Background of the Case
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of certain pre-constitutional state laws under the Constitution of India, 1950.
These laws restricted certain rights, which potentially conflicted with Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Issue:
Whether laws enacted before the Constitution came into force can be invalidated if they contradict Fundamental Rights.
How the Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws.
2. Constitutional Questions Raised
Are pre-constitutional laws automatically void if inconsistent with Fundamental Rights?
Can such laws be revived if Fundamental Rights are amended to permit them?
How does the Doctrine of Eclipse operate in Indian law?
3. Doctrine of Eclipse (Legal Principle)
Definition:
When a pre-constitutional law conflicts with Fundamental Rights, it is not void ab initio, but eclipsed.
It loses effect to the extent of inconsistency with Fundamental Rights.
If the Fundamental Rights are later amended, the law can revive automatically.
Illustration:
Pre-1950 law restricts property rights → Conflicts with Article 19(1)(f) (Right to Property at that time) → Law becomes eclipsed.
After amendment of Article 31 (Right to Property removed), law may operate normally.
4. Supreme Court Judgment
Held:
Pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not null and void, but eclipsed.
Such laws remain dormant until constitutional amendment or removal of inconsistency.
Courts can enforce Fundamental Rights, but eclipsed laws are not struck down permanently.
Doctrine preserves legal continuity while ensuring protection of Fundamental Rights.
Reasoning:
To avoid legal vacuum from invalidating all pre-constitutional laws.
To allow parliamentary flexibility in amending Fundamental Rights.
5. Significance of the Judgment
Doctrine of Eclipse Clarified:
Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are inoperative, not void.
They can revive automatically when inconsistency is removed.
Preserves Legal Continuity:
Avoids mass invalidation of pre-constitutional laws.
Interaction with Amendments:
Enables laws to regain effect when parliament amends Fundamental Rights.
Differentiation from Doctrine of Repugnancy:
Eclipse: temporary inoperation due to inconsistency.
Repugnancy: conflict between laws; resolved by parliamentary or judicial interpretation.
6. Related Principles and Cases
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970)
Discussed compensation for property acquisition and interaction with Fundamental Rights.
Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951)
Validated constitutional amendments, relevant to revival of eclipsed laws.
Doctrine in India:
Ensures balance between Fundamental Rights and pre-constitutional laws.
7. Conclusion
Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad (1974) is a landmark case on the Doctrine of Eclipse, which provides that:
Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not void, but temporarily inoperative.
These laws can revive if constitutional inconsistency is removed.
It maintains continuity of law while protecting Fundamental Rights.
This doctrine is important in constitutional law, especially regarding pre-1950 legislation and amendments affecting Fundamental Rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments