Doctrine of Eclipse

 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.

Concept of Doctrine of Eclipse

  • 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.
  • "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.
  • The eclipse doctrine considers fundamental rights to be prospective in nature.
  • 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

  • Only pre-constitutional legislation that was valid at the time of their enactment is covered by the doctrine.
  • 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.
  • Non-citizens, on the other hand, cannot take advantage of the rule because the infringement has no effect on them.
  • The challenged law must be in violation of fundamental rights in order to be disguised or eclipsed.
  • 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.
  • The law immediately becomes operative if the fundamental right that the challenged statute violates is changed in the future.
Related judgements

Related judgments

  • Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh
  • 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,
  • 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

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.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cloudbursts and Heavy Rainfall

Introduction   : Sudden, “highly-localised rains” in Amarnath, Jammu and Kashmir, on Friday evening (July 8) caused flooding and led to the deaths of at least 16 people and injuries   to more than 20 others. Those who died were at a camp near the cave, a site of pilgrimage. What is a cloudburst? A cloudburst refers to an extreme amount of rain that happens in a short period, sometimes accompanied by hail and thunder, and this has a precise definition.  The India Meteorological Department (IMD) defines it as unexpected precipitation exceeding 100mm (or 10 cm) per hour over a geographical region of approximately 20 to 30 square km. Significant amounts of rainfall such as this can result in floods . Why do cloudbursts occur in hilly areas like Amarnath? Experts have said it is difficult to predict when exactly a cloudburst will occur, and there is little definitive data on the exact number of cloudbursts that occur in India.  Due to their definition dealing wi...
Read more

Doctrine of Colourable Legislation

  The doctrine of colourable legislation checks if the legislature has transgressed its power mentioned in the constitution. The expression “Colourable Legislation” means “what can’t be done directly, can’t be done indirectly as well”. In this article, we will discuss what is the doctrine of colourable legislation and the famous Supreme Court Judgements in which this doctrine is used to check the validity of the law. Concept Concept of Doctrine of Colourable Legislation Separation of powers entails the division or sharing of power. The Constitution states that each of these organs should exercise diverse powers in order to prevent the misuse of authority by any of the government's organs. As a result, a system of checks and balances emerges. With respect to their respective subjects, the Constitution has split powers between the federal government and the states. However, the legislative body occasionally passes laws that are outside of its purview. This signifies it has oversteppe...
Read more

Doctrine of Laches

  The doctrine of laches is applied by the judiciary to check if the case was brought in front of the court in a reasonable time or not. Laches literally means delay. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the doctrine is based on the maxim that “equity aids the vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.” Therefore one can claim their legal right in reasonable time and not after a long delay. Concept of Doctrine of Laches This doctrine means that if a prolonged delay in asserting a legal right or claim has harmed the opposing party, the right or claim will not be upheld or permitted. Anyone seeking redress must appear in court within a fair time frame. However, the question is whether fundamental rights can be denied under Article 32 due to a delay. Fundamental rights cannot be withheld just due to inaction, as this is unjustifiable. It is vital for one's personal development. Supreme Court Judgements in which doctrine of laches is used Ravindra Jain vs UOI The supreme court...
Read more