DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE AND ITS

APPLICABILITY TO POST CONSTITUTIONAL

LAWS
“

2
 DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE
-It deals with pre-constitutional laws and existing laws.
-The law which has been valid at its inception but has become
invalid on the coming of the Constitution of India by reason of
being inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by
part 3 is treated dormant.
-But it is not considered as dead end so by subsequent
amendment if that inconsistency is removed it will be free
from infirmity and can be enforceable

3
CASE REFERENCES
KESHAV MADHAV MENNON VS STATE OF
BOMBAY - 1951

-The existing law because of its inconsistency is not

completely wiped out altogether. It still continues to be
enforced even after the commencement of constitution
with respect to those people whose rights it did not
violate.
- It goes to dormant status
- Law which violates fundamental rights is not nullifies
as void ab initio but becomes uninforceable
BIKAJI NARAYAN VS STATE OF MP - 1955
⊹ Effect of any amendments are done to remove the
shadow and make it dirt free from all infirmity.
⊹ As soon as constitutional impediment or infirmity is
removed it becomes enforceable against citizens
⊹ Since law was merely eclipsed for the time being by
the fundamental rights so as soon as eclipse is
removed it becomes enforceable from the date of such
removal

5
POST
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAWS
6
DEEP CHAND VS STATE OF UP - 1959
-It contested that post constitutional laws which are in
contravention to fundamental rights are still born laws
-They are to be considered as void ab initio. Doctrine of
eclipse does not apply to post constitutional laws.
-Constitutional amendment cannot revive a wrong law it has
to be subsided

STATE OF GUJARAT VS AMBIKA MILLS - 1974

- Post constitutional laws which are inconsistent with fundamental

rights are not null or void ab initio
- It is to be looked merely at the part which is constitutional and that
should be shadowed through this doctrine
7
 I.R COEHELO VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU – 1973
-Court contended that law transfers under schedule IX can be
challenged if they are violation of part III of the constitution of
India.
- So immunity of schedule IX is not absolute

L JAGANNATH VS AUTHORISED OFFICER - 1972

- It contends that even if any statute which was made after the
constitution came to place and had defects and inconsistency against
fundamental rights will assume full force and vigor if it is transferred
directly to schedule IX no case can be filed.
8
THANK YOU