Doctrine of Eclipse

When the Constitution came into force, many existing laws were inconsistent with the new fundamental rights. Were they wiped out entirely, or merely put to sleep? The doctrine of eclipse answers that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with fundamental rights is not dead but overshadowed: it becomes unenforceable to the extent of the inconsistency, and revives if the shadow is later removed. This note explains the doctrine, its leading cases, and how post-constitutional laws are treated differently.

1. The Doctrine

Figure 1: Eclipse and revival

• Article 13(1). All laws in force immediately before the Constitution, so far as inconsistent with Part III, are void to the extent of the inconsistency.
• Eclipsed, not erased. Such a law is not wiped off the statute book; it is overshadowed by the fundamental right and becomes unenforceable.
• Revival. If the inconsistency is later removed, usually by constitutional amendment, the law becomes enforceable again without re-enactment.

2. The Leading Cases on Pre-Constitutional Laws

Figure 2: Eclipse in the Supreme Court

• Keshavan Madhava Menon (1951). The Court held that Article 13(1) is prospective: a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with fundamental rights is not void ab initio, so a prosecution for an offence committed before 26 January 1950 could continue.
• Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955). A pre-constitutional law enabling the State to take over motor transport business had become inconsistent with Article 19(1)(g). When the First Amendment (1951) widened Article 19(6) to permit State monopolies, the Court held the law was revived: it had only been eclipsed.

3. Post-Constitutional Laws

• Article 13(2). The State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges fundamental rights; a law made in contravention is void to the extent of the contravention.
• Deep Chand (1959). The Court held that a post-constitutional law contravening Article 13(2) is void from its inception; it is stillborn, so the doctrine of eclipse does not apply and a later amendment cannot revive it.
• Ambica Mills (1974). The Court refined the position: a post-constitutional law that infringes a right available only to citizens, such as Article 19, is void only as against citizens; it remains valid and enforceable against non-citizens, such as companies, and to that extent the doctrine of eclipse applies.

4. Eclipse and Severability

• Both rest on Article 13. Each limits invalidity to the extent of the inconsistency.
• Severability. Separates the invalid part of a law from the valid part (Topic 31)
• Eclipse. Concerns the status over time of a law that is inconsistent, and whether it can revive.

5. Frequently Asked Questions

What is the doctrine of eclipse?

It is the doctrine that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with fundamental rights is not void altogether but is eclipsed, or overshadowed, by the fundamental right. It remains on the statute book but is unenforceable to the extent of the inconsistency, and if the inconsistency is later removed by a constitutional amendment, the law revives without being re-enacted.

What was decided in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v State of MP?

A pre-constitutional law authorising the State to take over the motor transport business had become inconsistent with Article 19(1)(g). After the First Amendment of 1951 amended Article 19(6) to permit State monopolies, the Supreme Court held in 1955 that the law revived, since it had merely been eclipsed and not destroyed.

Does the doctrine of eclipse apply to post-constitutional laws?

Ordinarily not. In Deep Chand v State of UP (1959) the Court held that a post-constitutional law contravening fundamental rights is void from inception. But in State of Gujarat v Shri Ambica Mills (1974) it held that such a law, if it infringes a right available only to citizens, is void only as against citizens and remains operative against non-citizens.

6. Related Topics

• Topic 31: Doctrine of Severability. The other Article 13 doctrine.
• Topic 34: Doctrine of Prospective Overruling. Limiting the effect of invalidity in time.