Difference Between the Doctrine of Eclipse and Severability

Introduction

What happens when a law partially violates fundamental rights? Should the entire law be struck down, or can only the unconstitutional part be removed? The Doctrine of Eclipse and the Doctrine of Severability answer these questions by providing legal principles to handle unconstitutional laws under the Indian Constitution.

Both doctrines play a crucial role in constitutional interpretation, ensuring that laws remain valid while protecting fundamental rights. While the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws that contradict fundamental rights, the Doctrine of Severability allows courts to remove unconstitutional portions from a law while keeping the rest intact.

This article explores both doctrines, their key differences, landmark cases, and real-life applications in Indian constitutional law.

Understanding the Doctrine of Eclipse

What is the Doctrine of Eclipse?

The Doctrine of Eclipse states that if a pre-constitutional law (a law enacted before January 26, 1950) violates fundamental rights, it does not become completely void. Instead, it remains inactive or eclipsed and can become valid again if the constitutional conflict is removed.

Key Features of the Doctrine of Eclipse

-  Applies Only to Pre-Constitutional Laws – It does not apply to post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights.

-  Law Becomes Dormant, Not Void – The unconstitutional law does not completely disappear but remains in the background.

-   Can Be Revived – If the constitutional inconsistency is removed (e.g., by an amendment), the law becomes effective again.

-   Fundamental Rights Are Supreme – Until the conflict is resolved, fundamental rights take precedence over the law.

Example of the Doctrine of Eclipse

🔹 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) – In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that a pre-constitutional law that became unconstitutional due to Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Freedom of Trade) was not void. However, after a constitutional amendment removed the conflict, the law became valid again.

Understanding the Doctrine of Severability

What is the Doctrine of Severability?

The Doctrine of Severability, also known as the Doctrine of Separability, states that if only a part of a law is unconstitutional, the rest of the law can still remain valid, provided the unconstitutional portion can be removed without affecting the entire statute.

Key Features of the Doctrine of Severability

-   Applies to Both Pre- and Post-Constitutional Laws – Courts can use this doctrine to remove unconstitutional portions from both old and new laws.

-   Only the Unconstitutional Part is Removed – If a law has some valid and some invalid provisions, only the invalid parts are struck down, and the rest remains enforceable.

-   The Remaining Law Must Make Sense – If removing the unconstitutional part makes the entire law meaningless, then the whole law may be struck down.

Example of the Doctrine of Severability

🔹 R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957) – The Supreme Court ruled that if an unconstitutional section of a law can be removed without affecting the rest of the Act, then only that portion will be struck down, keeping the rest of the law valid.

Key Differences Between the Doctrine of Eclipse and Severability

Landmark Cases on Eclipse and Severability

Cases on the Doctrine of Eclipse

- Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) – Pre-constitutional laws violating Article 19 can remain inactive but can be revived if the constitutional barrier is removed.

- State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974) – Reinforced that only pre-constitutional laws can be subject to the Doctrine of Eclipse.

Cases on the Doctrine of Severability

- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) – The Supreme Court applied severability to remove unconstitutional provisions from a detention law, keeping the valid sections intact.

- Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) – The court struck down part of the Tenth Schedule related to judicial review but kept the rest of the anti-defection law valid.

Real-Life Applications of These Doctrines

Example 1: The Right to Property (Doctrine of Eclipse)

• Before the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978), the Right to Property was a fundamental right.

• After the amendment, it was downgraded to a legal right, removing the constitutional conflict for laws restricting property rights.

• Laws that were previously eclipsed due to violating fundamental rights became valid again after the change.

Example 2: The Aadhaar Act (Doctrine of Severability)

• The Supreme Court removed unconstitutional parts of the Aadhaar Act, such as mandatory Aadhaar for bank accounts, but retained the valid sections.

Conclusion

Both the Doctrine of Eclipse and the Doctrine of Severability are vital tools in constitutional interpretation that help maintain the balance between legal continuity and fundamental rights.

- The Doctrine of Eclipse ensures that pre-constitutional laws violating fundamental rights are not completely void but only inoperative until a constitutional change allows their revival.

- The Doctrine of Severability allows courts to strike down unconstitutional sections of a law while keeping the rest enforceable, preventing unnecessary invalidation of entire statutes.

Together, these doctrines play a crucial role in ensuring that laws evolve with constitutional values while maintaining legal stability.

FAQs

1. What is the main difference between the Doctrine of Eclipse and the Doctrine of Severability?

The Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws and holds them inactive if they violate fundamental rights, while the Doctrine of Severability applies to all laws and removes only the unconstitutional parts.

2. Can a law under the Doctrine of Eclipse be revived?

Yes, a law under Eclipse can become valid again if the constitutional conflict is removed, such as through an amendment.

3. Does the Doctrine of Severability apply to post-constitutional laws?

Yes, it applies to both pre- and post-constitutional laws, allowing courts to remove unconstitutional portions while keeping the rest valid.

4. Which case is the best example of the Doctrine of Eclipse?

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) is a landmark case illustrating the Doctrine of Eclipse.

5. Why is the Doctrine of Severability important?

It ensures that only unconstitutional parts of a law are removed, preventing the unnecessary invalidation of entire statutes.