Difference Between the Doctrine of Eclipse and Severability
1. Doctrine of Eclipse
Meaning
The Doctrine of Eclipse arises when a law is inconsistent with a Fundamental Right at the time it is enacted.
Such a law is not void, but becomes “eclipsed” or dormant to the extent of the inconsistency.
It cannot operate as long as the Fundamental Right is in force, but it is not dead.
If the inconsistent Fundamental Right is amended or removed, the law revives automatically.
Key Features
Applicable only to laws enacted before the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
The law is valid but unenforceable to the extent of inconsistency.
Revival possible if the conflicting Fundamental Right is altered.
Leading Case Law
Bharat Singh v. State of Punjab (1953) – Explained that a law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not void ab initio, but becomes dormant until the inconsistency is removed.
State of Madras v. G. Chockalingam (1954) – Reinforced that pre-constitutional laws eclipsed by Fundamental Rights may revive if rights are amended.
2. Doctrine of Severability
Meaning
The Doctrine of Severability applies when a part of a statute is unconstitutional or violates Fundamental Rights.
The unconstitutional part can be “severed”, leaving the rest of the statute valid and enforceable.
Courts preserve the valid portions of a law if they are independent of the unconstitutional portion.
Key Features
Applicable to any law (pre- or post-Fundamental Rights enforcement).
Only the unconstitutional portion is struck down, not the whole law.
Ensures continuity of legislative intent where possible.
Leading Case Law
Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – Supreme Court applied severability to uphold the valid portions of a law while striking down unconstitutional amendments.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) – Courts emphasized that only offending provisions are invalidated, preserving the rest of the statute.
3. Key Differences
| Aspect | Doctrine of Eclipse | Doctrine of Severability |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability | Pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights | Any law with unconstitutional or illegal provisions |
| Effect | Law becomes dormant but not void | Unconstitutional part is struck down, rest remains valid |
| Revival | Can revive if Fundamental Rights change | No revival; only invalid part removed |
| Scope | Entire law may be inoperative due to Fundamental Rights | Only specific unconstitutional portions are removed |
| Objective | Protects the law from being entirely nullified | Preserves valid legislative intent while removing unconstitutional parts |
| Case Example | Bharat Singh v. State of Punjab (1953) | Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) |
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Eclipse deals with pre-constitutional laws that are temporarily inoperative due to conflict with Fundamental Rights, and they may revive later.
The Doctrine of Severability deals with removing unconstitutional parts of a law, leaving the rest intact and enforceable.
Both doctrines are tools for courts to balance legislative intent with constitutional supremacy, but they operate in different contexts and mechanisms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments