Both the Doctrine of Severability and the Doctrine of Eclipse are fundamental concepts in the realm of constitutional law in India. These doctrines are linked to the power of judicial review vested in the courts, which helps ensure the supremacy of the Constitution. Here’s a deeper look into both:
1. Doctrine of Severability:
Definition: This doctrine is based on the idea that if a particular law has portions that are unconstitutional and other portions that are constitutional, the portions that are constitutional can be "severed" or separated from the unconstitutional ones and can still stand on their own.
Relevance: The doctrine is pivotal when courts examine the validity of a statute, especially when only part of it may be in violation of the Constitution.
Article 13: The Constitution of India, in Article 13, states that any law which contravenes the fundamental rights shall be void. However, the whole law doesn’t necessarily become void. If the offending portion(s) can be severed without affecting the law's essence, the rest of the law remains valid.
Case Reference: In the landmark case, R.M.D.C. (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India (1957), the Supreme Court held that if the invalid portion or provisions of a law can be severed from the valid portions, then only the invalid portion would be declared void, leaving the valid portions intact.
2. Doctrine of Eclipse:
Definition: The Doctrine of Eclipse is based on the principle that any law inconsistent with the fundamental rights of the Constitution is not altogether void but is overshadowed by the fundamental rights and remains dormant. However, it can become operative once the inconsistency with the fundamental rights is removed.
Relevance: This doctrine comes into play primarily with pre-constitutional laws (laws made before the Constitution came into effect) that are inconsistent with the fundamental rights.
Article 13: The Indian Constitution says in Article 13 that laws that violate the fundamental rights are void. But for pre-constitutional laws, this invalidity exists only concerning the people who have the particular fundamental right. This means that the law remains valid for those who do not have that right.
Case Reference: A landmark case related to this doctrine is Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955). In this case, a pre-Constitution law that was discriminatory (and hence overshadowed by the non-discrimination right) became valid once the Constitution was later amended to remove that right.
To summarize, the Doctrine of Severability allows for parts of a law to be upheld even if other parts are struck down, while the Doctrine of Eclipse is about the overshadowing and potential reactivation of laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution's fundamental rights. Both these doctrines are essential tools in the hands of the judiciary to shape the legal landscape in line with the Constitution's principles.
