Doctrine of Eclipse, Doctrine of Severability, and Doctrine of Waiver in Indian Constitutional Law

The Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to its citizens, and any law that violates these rights is subject to judicial review. Over the years, the judiciary has evolved various doctrines to interpret the constitutional validity of laws. Among these, the Doctrine of Eclipse, Doctrine of Severability, and Doctrine of Waiver are significant principles that ensure the balance between constitutional supremacy and legislative authority. In this article, we will delve into these doctrines along with landmark case laws.

Doctrine of Eclipse

Meaning and Concept

The Doctrine of Eclipse is based on the principle that a law that violates fundamental rights is not entirely void but becomes inoperative or "eclipsed" until the inconsistency is removed. This doctrine is derived from Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution, which states that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights shall be void to the extent of their inconsistency.

The doctrine applies only to pre-constitutional laws (laws made before the enforcement of the Constitution on January 26, 1950). If a fundamental right is amended or removed, the eclipsed law can become operative again.

Landmark Case Laws

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955)

Facts: The petitioners challenged the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which granted the government a monopoly over transport services, arguing that it violated the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of trade and profession).

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the law was valid before the Constitution and became "eclipsed" after the Constitution came into force. However, after the First Amendment Act (1951), which introduced Article 19(6) allowing state monopolies, the eclipse was removed, and the law became enforceable again.

State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974)

Facts: The case involved the constitutional validity of certain labor laws enacted before the Constitution came into force.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that pre-constitutional laws remain dormant but do not become entirely void. They can be revived if the inconsistency is removed.

A SWAMY PUBLICATION THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Doctrine of Severability

Meaning and Concept

The Doctrine of Severability ensures that if a portion of a statute is unconstitutional, only that part is struck down while the rest of the law remains valid. This doctrine is enshrined in Article 13(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits the state from making laws that take away or abridge fundamental rights.

If the invalid portion is so integral that the remaining law cannot stand independently, then the whole statute may be declared unconstitutional.

Landmark Case Laws

R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957)

Facts: The petitioner challenged the Prize Competitions Act, 1955, arguing that it was unconstitutional as it restricted certain competitions.

Judgment: The Supreme Court applied the Doctrine of Severability, holding that only the unconstitutional parts of the Act should be struck down while retaining the rest of the law.

Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1950)

Facts: The case challenged a provision of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of Beedi (Agricultural Purposes) Act, 1949, which restricted employment in beedi-making.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the provision violated Article 19(1)(g) and struck it down. However, the rest of the law remained intact, applying the severability principle.

Doctrine of Waiver

Meaning and Concept

The Doctrine of Waiver states that an individual can voluntarily relinquish a legal right or privilege, including fundamental rights. However, the Supreme Court has held that fundamental rights are not merely personal but serve the public interest. Thus, an individual cannot waive certain fundamental rights that uphold constitutional principles.

Landmark Case Laws

Behram Khurshed Pesikaka v. State of Bombay (1955)

Facts: The case involved a challenge to the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, which was alleged to violate fundamental rights.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that fundamental rights are based on constitutional policies and cannot be waived by individuals.

Basheshar Nath v. Income Tax Commissioner (1959)

Facts: The petitioner challenged an agreement with the Income Tax Department, arguing that it violated his fundamental rights under Article 14 (right to equality).

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that an individual cannot waive fundamental rights under Article 14. This decision reinforced that fundamental rights serve a broader constitutional purpose and cannot be waived through individual consent.

Conclusion

The doctrines of Eclipse, Severability, and Waiver play a crucial role in interpreting constitutional provisions and ensuring the balance between individual rights and legislative authority. While the Doctrine of Eclipse keeps unconstitutional pre-constitutional laws inoperative until the inconsistency is removed, the Doctrine of Severability allows partial invalidation of laws. The Doctrine of Waiver, however, limits the ability of individuals to renounce fundamental rights that protect public interests.

Understanding these doctrines is essential for legal scholars, practitioners, and citizens, as they define the framework within which constitutional rights and legislative actions operate. These principles not only safeguard individual liberties but also uphold the supremacy of the Constitution in India. 

The Constitution of India

Please join Official LawVarta Telegram Group for Legal concepts and Latest News: LawVarta (Telegram)