The Doctrine of Eclipse

 Introduction

The Doctrine of Eclipse is enshrined in Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). This doctrine deals with laws that existed before the Constitution came into force, often referred to as pre-constitutional laws or existing laws.

What is the Doctrine of Eclipse?

The Doctrine of Eclipse applies to laws that were valid at their inception but became inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution once it came into force. Such laws are not considered dead but dormant. If the inconsistency is later removed through a constitutional amendment, the law becomes enforceable again, free from any constitutional infirmities.

What is Article 13(1) of the COI?

Article 13 addresses laws that are inconsistent with or derogate from the Fundamental Rights. Specifically, Article 13(1) states that all laws in force before the commencement of the Constitution, to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part III (Fundamental Rights), will be void.

Elements of the Doctrine of Eclipse

The key elements of the Doctrine of Eclipse are:

• The law must be a pre-constitutional law.
• The law must conflict with Fundamental Rights.
• The law does not become a dead letter but remains inoperative until the inconsistency is resolved.
• If there is an amendment to the relevant Fundamental Rights, the law will become operative again.

Does the Doctrine of Eclipse Apply to Post-Constitutional Laws?

The Doctrine of Eclipse is applicable only to pre-constitutional laws, governed by Article 13(1). It does not apply to post-Constitutional laws, which are governed by Article 13(2).
Article 13(2) states that the State cannot make laws that take away or abridge the Fundamental Rights, and any such law shall be void to the extent of the contravention.

Landmark Case Laws 

1. Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959)
   In this case, the Supreme Court held that a post-constitutional law made under Article 13(2) that contravenes a Fundamental Right is considered a nullity from its inception, meaning it is void ab initio (from the very beginning).

2. State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1962)
   The Supreme Court modified its stance from the Deep Chand case, stating that a post-constitutional law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not necessarily a nullity or non-existent in all cases and for all purposes. The law may still have an effect depending on the circumstances.

The Doctrine of Eclipse highlights the temporary inoperability of pre-constitutional laws that conflict with Fundamental Rights, which may be revived if constitutional amendments remove the inconsistency. However, post-constitutional laws that contravene Fundamental Rights are treated differently and are void from their inception.