Doctrine of Eclipse Article 13 (1)

Doctrine of Eclipse states that any law that is incompatible with fundamental
rights is not invalid. It isn't completely dead, but it has been overshadowed by
the fundamental right. According to the Doctrine of Eclipse, any law that is
incompatible with fundamental rights is not invalid. This article explains
the Doctrine of Eclipse.

Table of Content

1. Concept
2. Significance
3. Related judgements
4. Conclusion

Concept of Doctrine of Eclipse

1. Any law that is incompatible with fundamental rights is not invalid,

according to the Doctrine of Eclipse. It isn't completely dead, but it has
been eclipsed by the fundamental right.
2. "All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the
commencement of this Constitution in so far as they are inconsistent with
the provisions of this Part, i.e. Part III, shall, to the extent of such
inconsistency, be void," states Article 13(1) of the Constitution, which is
part of the fundamental rights.
3. The eclipse doctrine considers fundamental rights to be prospective in
nature.
4. It states that a pre-constitutional statute that violates fundamental rights
is not null and void from the start, but rather stays unenforceable, or in a
dormant state.

Significance

1. Only pre-constitutional legislation that was valid at the time of their

enactment is covered by the doctrine.
2. The doctrine does not apply to post-constitutional statutes since they are
unconstitutional from the start due to their inconsistency with Part III, as
the Supreme Court concluded in Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
3. Non-citizens, on the other hand, cannot take advantage of the rule because
the infringement has no effect on them.
 4. The challenged law must be in violation of fundamental rights in order
to be disguised or eclipsed.
5. The law that is found to be in violation of Part III does not become null
and void; rather, it is rendered unenforceable and faulty.
6. The law immediately becomes operative if the fundamental right that the
challenged statute violates is changed in the future.

Related judgments

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh - 1955 AIR 781

• The C. P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Amendment Act of 1947 was

challenged in this case for violating Article 19(1) (g)of the Constitution.
• This amendment act was enacted prior to the establishment of the United
States Constitution. As a result, the Doctrine of Eclipse was applied,
rendering the Act's provisions ineffective.

Keshav Madhav Menon v. State of Bombay case – AIR 1951 SCR 228

• When the Constitution went into effect, the case was still unresolved,
raising difficulties about the prospective and retrospective nature
of Article 13(1) and the term "invalid."
• The Court had to decide whether the challenged Act violated Article
19(1)(a) and, if so, whether it should be declared unlawful.

Conclusion

The Doctrine of Eclipse is a somewhat subtle rule of law notion that has prevented
pre-constitutional legislation from being repealed entirely. It's important to note
that the doctrine's applicability to post-constitutional laws is still a bit of a grey
area. This philosophy, on the other hand, has been successful in unifying the pre-
constitutional and post-constitutional stances on many laws, ensuring the triumph
of constitutionalism in every meaning of the word.