Doctrine of Eclipse in Indian Constitution
1. Meaning of Doctrine of Eclipse
The Doctrine of Eclipse is a principle in constitutional law which deals with the validity of laws in conflict with Fundamental Rights (FRs).
Definition: If a law is inconsistent with Fundamental Rights at the time of its enactment, it is not void, but only “eclipsed” or dormant to the extent of the inconsistency.
Such a law does not cease to exist, and can be revived if the Fundamental Right in question is later amended or removed.
The doctrine is called “eclipse” because the law is temporarily overshadowed by FRs.
Key Idea:
A law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not dead; it is dormant and may regain validity if the conflict disappears.
2. Origin of the Doctrine
The doctrine is derived from the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 13(1) of the Constitution.
Article 13(1): Laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of their inconsistency.
The Supreme Court clarified that the law is not void ab initio, but only ineffective until the FR conflict is removed.
3. Features of the Doctrine of Eclipse
Partial invalidity: The law is invalid only to the extent it conflicts with FRs.
Temporary: The law is dormant, not permanently void.
Revival possible: If the FR is amended or removed, the law becomes enforceable.
Distinction from Doctrine of Repugnancy: Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional or post-constitutional laws inconsistent with FRs, while repugnancy applies in federal conflicts between central and state laws.
4. Explanation with Example
Example:
Suppose State Law X (enacted in 1950) discriminated based on religion and conflicted with Article 15(1) – Right to Equality.
If Article 15 is later amended to permit certain religious reservations, Law X may regain validity.
“Eclipsed” means the law exists but cannot operate fully until FR conflict disappears.
5. Leading Case Laws
Case 1: Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955 SCR 857)
Facts: State law restricting press freedom was inconsistent with Article 19(1)(a).
Principle: Supreme Court held that the law was eclipsed by FRs, not void.
Significance: First recognition of the Doctrine of Eclipse in India.
Case 2: R.M.D.C. v. Union of India (1966 AIR SC 1752)
Facts: Certain provisions of a law were inconsistent with FRs.
Principle: Supreme Court emphasized that the law is dormant, not dead, and may regain validity if the FR conflict ceases.
Case 3: I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007 2 SCC 1)
Facts: State laws placed under the 9th Schedule were challenged as inconsistent with FRs.
Principle: Supreme Court reaffirmed the Doctrine of Eclipse, stating laws in the 9th Schedule are eclipsed only if inconsistent with FRs enacted after 1971.
Significance: Modern application of the doctrine in balancing legislative power and Fundamental Rights.
6. Key Points
Doctrine of Eclipse is a judicial principle to save laws partially inconsistent with FRs.
The law exists but cannot be enforced until FR conflict is removed.
Differs from Doctrine of Voidness: Void laws are permanently invalid.
Ensures legislative continuity while protecting Fundamental Rights.
Applied mostly in cases of pre-constitutional laws or laws conflicting with FRs.
7. Conclusion
Doctrine of Eclipse ensures a balance between legislative enactments and Fundamental Rights.
Laws inconsistent with FRs are temporarily overshadowed, not completely invalid.
It allows revival of laws if the conflict with FRs ceases due to constitutional amendment or change in FRs.
Courts have consistently applied this doctrine to protect both legislative intent and citizens’ rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments