Doctrine of Eclipse
/ˈdɒktrɪn əv ɪˈklɪps/
Constitutional Law Doctrine
Images
CC-licensed · free to useVideo
Definition
A doctrine that applies to pre-Constitutional laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights. Such laws are not void — they are merely eclipsed (rendered dormant and unenforceable) to the extent of the inconsistency. If the fundamental right is subsequently amended or abridged, the law comes back into force (the eclipse is removed). The doctrine does not apply to post-Constitutional laws — those are void ab initio under Article 13(2).
Examples
Case Study
In Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955), the Supreme Court laid down the doctrine of eclipse. It held that pre-Constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights exist in a moribund state — they are valid between non-citizens (who cannot claim fundamental rights) but unenforceable against citizens. The eclipsed law can revive if the fundamental right is amended.
Key Cases
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh
1955AIR 1955 SC 781
Established the doctrine of eclipse. Pre-Constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are eclipsed (dormant) but not void. They revive if the fundamental right is amended to permit them. Crucial to understanding Article 13(1) vs. 13(2).
View on Indian Kanoon →