1.

Keshavan Madhava Menon 1951 7 Article 13(1) is

prospective in nature.
It envisages that a pre-Constitutional law, inconsistent with an FR is not wiped off altogether from the
statute books after the commencement of the Constitution

DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE:
1951
 Key concepts

• statute book
• keshavan
• Madhya Pradesh
 Abstract

State of Madhya Pradesh evolved. It envisages that a pre-Constitutional law, inconsistent with an FR is not wiped off altogether
from the statute books after the commencement of the Constitution.
 Highlights

• It envisages that a pre-Constitutional law, inconsistent with an FR is not wiped off altogether from the statute books after the
commencement of the Constitution
• The law in question will be regarded as having been “eclipsed” for the time being by the relevant FR
• CASE LAW: Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay:1951 ➔ Issue: Whether a prosecution commenced before the
commencement of the Constitution could be continued after the Constitution came into force as the Act in question there
became void as violating Article 19 (1) (a) and 19 (2). ➔ The answer to the same depends on: ◆ What is the nature of Article
13(1)? Is it prospective or retrospective in nature? ● Every statute is prima-facie prospective unless it is expressly or by
necessary implication made to have retrospective operation; and this rule of interpretation is applicable to the Constitution
• The language of Article 13(1), far from indicating any intention to give it retrospective operation. ◆ Are these pre-
Constitutional laws void ab initio after the Commencement of the application of the Constitution? ● The SC held that the laws
are not void ab initio. It is only after the commencement of the Constitution that the question of voidness owing to
inconsistency arises. They will remain in the statute books as during the time of enactment they were valid pieces of legislation.
◆ Whether such inconsistent laws were wiped off or obliterated from the statute books? ● The question of inconsistency, as the
FRs became applicable after 26th January, 1950, must necessarily arise on and from that date that those rights came into force
 The Doctrine of Eclipse was

It envisages that a pre-Constitutional law, inconsistent with an FR is not wiped off altogether from the statute books after the
commencement of the Constitution.
The law in question will be regarded as having been “eclipsed” for the time being by the relevant FR.
Mills with FRs are not null for all purposes.
Such law which abridges Article 19 will remain operative against non-citizens and will be void only against citizens
 Doctrine of Eclipse can be invoked

The SC held that a CA is not a law under Article 13(3) and that the Parliament could take away FRs by way of a CA.
The SC said that had it been the Rajasthan intention of the makers of the Constitution to consider a CA as law, they would have
specified that same in Article 13(3).
Punjab the date of this decision to amend any of the provisions of Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the
fundamental rights enshrined therein.
It held that the parliament cannot amend the basic features of the constitution: Basic Structure Doctrine.
Articles 368(4) and 368(5) on the basis that it violated the basic structure doctrine, taking away the power of judicial review.
DEFINITION: ➔ Article 13 talks about: Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights
 Definition of Law

CLAUSE (1): PRE- CONSTITUTION LAWS: ➔ 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, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be
void.
➔ It deals with pre-Constitution or existing laws, i.e., laws which were in force immediately before the commencement of the
constitution.
➔ Article 372: All laws in force in India before the commencement of the Constitution shall continue in force until altered or
repealed or amended by a competent legislature or other competent authority
 CASE LAW

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of MadhyaPradesh: 1955 ➔ SC clarified the meaning of doctrine of eclipse in this case. ➔ Bhikaji
and others were carrying out a stage carriage business operator business.
➔ The questions before the Court were: ◆ Whether the law of 1947, having become void, was dead once for all?; The Doctrine of
Eclipse envisages that a pre-Constitutional law, inconsistent with a Fundamental Right, was not wiped off altogether from the
statute books after the commencement of the Constitution.
(NO) ➔ As per Deep Chand v. State of Uttar PradeshCase: ◆ A post constitutional law made under Article 13(2) which contravenes
a fundamental right is nullity from its inception and still-born law.
IS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT LAW UNDER ARTICLE 13(2): ➔ This question arose for the first time in Shankari
Prasad v. Union of India.
➔ Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India: 1980 ◆ The SC held that the 42nd CA was unconstitutional. ◆ It struck down Articles
368(4) and 368(5) on the basis that it violated the basic structure doctrine, taking away the power of judicial review