Doctrine of Eclipse: Reviving Dormant Laws

Doctrine of Eclipse: Reviving Dormant Laws

By allowing dormant laws to revive, it ensures that governance doesn’t suffer due to outdated inconsistencies.

Introduction: The “Twilight Zone” of Laws

Imagine a law as a solar-powered robot. When the sun (Fundamental Rights) shines, the robot stops functioning because its mechanism conflicts with the light. But if the sun dims or the mechanism is fixed, it can start functioning again. This sums up the Doctrine of Eclipse under Indian Constitutional law. It allows laws overshadowed by Fundamental Rights to revive when the inconsistencies are removed. Let’s dive into this fascinating doctrine with all its legal nuances, provisions, and cases.

Provision Highlight: Article 13(1)

Article 13(1): Declares pre-constitutional laws void to the extent of their inconsistency with Fundamental Rights. However, these laws are not dead; they lie dormant and can revive if the inconsistency is removed.

Doctrine of Eclipse: Key Principles

1. Eclipse vs. Death

• A pre-constitutional law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not permanently void. It is merely inoperative or “eclipsed” for citizens.
• For non-citizens and pre-constitutional transactions, the law remains enforceable since Fundamental Rights don’t apply universally.

2. Revival Upon Cure

• If the defect in the law is cured through a constitutional amendment or change, the law regains its enforceability.

Landmark Cases on Doctrine of Eclipse

1. Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955)

• Facts: The C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Act allowed the state to monopolize transport services. Post-1950, this conflicted with Article 19(1)(g) and became void.
• Judgment: After the First Amendment empowered the state to create monopolies, the law revived, showing the doctrine in action.
• Key Takeaway: The law was inoperative only until the inconsistency was resolved.

2. Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959)

• Facts: A post-constitutional law conflicted with Fundamental Rights.
• Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws, not post-constitutional ones. Post-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void ab initio.
• Key Takeaway: This case clarified the temporal application of the doctrine.

3. Dularey Lodh v. ADJ, Kanpur (1984)

• Facts: Section 9 of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act barred the jurisdiction of Small Cause Courts. This was declared unconstitutional but later amended.
• Judgment: The doctrine was extended even to post-constitutional laws under certain conditions, reviving the previously inoperative provisions.
• Key Takeaway: Highlighted the judiciary’s evolving approach to eclipse-related laws.

Interaction with Article 254 and Legislative Competence

1. Laws in the Concurrent List

• Article 254(1) declares state laws inconsistent with central laws void.
• However, if the defect stems from legislative incompetence, the law can’t revive unless Parliament acts.

2. Governor’s Role

• The Governor can refer such laws to the President for reconsideration. The defect can be cured through Parliamentary approval or legislative amendment.

Criticism and Limitations

Applicability Limited to Pre-Constitutional Laws

• The doctrine primarily applies to pre-constitutional laws, leaving post-constitutional inconsistencies unaddressed unless amended.

Ambiguity in Revival Process

• No clear guidelines exist on how and when a law’s revival occurs after curing the inconsistency.

Judicial Overreach

• Critics argue that applying the doctrine to post-constitutional laws (as in Dularey Lodh) risks overstepping judicial boundaries.

Conclusion: A Second Chance for Laws

The Doctrine of Eclipse exemplifies the judiciary’s pragmatic approach to balancing legislative intent and constitutional supremacy. By allowing dormant laws to revive, it ensures that governance doesn’t suffer due to outdated inconsistencies. Whether you view it as a legal twilight zone or a safety net for flawed legislation, one thing is clear — it’s an essential tool in India’s constitutional arsenal. And who doesn’t love a good comeback story, even for laws?