The Doctrine of Eclipse is an important constitutional law principle in India that deals with the relationship between fundamental rights and existing laws enacted before the Constitution came into force. The name “eclipse” is metaphorical — just like the sun is temporarily overshadowed during an eclipse, some laws are temporarily overshadowed by the Constitution’s fundamental rights.
This doctrine ensures that the Constitution’s supremacy is maintained while also allowing old laws to remain valid in certain situations without being entirely erased from the statute books.
The Doctrine of Eclipse emerges from Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India, which states that laws in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution that are inconsistent with Fundamental Rights shall be void to the extent of the inconsistency.
Rather than declaring such inconsistent laws void from the beginning (void ab initio), the courts have interpreted Article 13 to mean that these laws are not dead — they are just unenforceable or dormant. This legal interpretation was articulated by the Supreme Court of India and has been developed through judicial decisions, notably in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955).
Key Concept Explained
Under the Doctrine of Eclipse:
- A law that existed before the Constitution (pre-constitutional law) and later conflicts with fundamental rights doesn’t disappear. Instead, it becomes “eclipsed” — i.e., inoperative or unenforceable to the extent of the conflict.
- It remains on the statute book, but citizens cannot enforce it where it breaches fundamental rights.
- If the inconsistency is removed, such as through a constitutional amendment or change in circumstances, the law becomes fully operative again.
Think of it like a temporarily hidden law — not dead, just shadowed by the fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution.
Why Is It Called “Eclipse”?
The term eclipse is a metaphor. Just as a solar eclipse temporarily obscures the sun, this doctrine suggests that fundamental rights can overshadow an inconsistent law. When the obstacle is removed (for example, the fundamental right is amended), the law can “shine again”.
Applicability of the Doctrine
- Pre-Constitutional Laws Only:
The doctrine generally applies only to laws that were in force before 26 January 1950, when the Constitution was adopted. - Contradictions With Fundamental Rights:
It applies where such laws are inconsistent with a fundamental right guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution. - Not a Complete Invalidity:
Contrary to complete invalidation, the law is only inoperative to the extent of its conflict with the Constitution. - Effect on Non-Citizens:
Some sources note that the doctrine practically affects citizens, because fundamental rights are enforceable by citizens; non-citizens might still be governed by such laws in limited ways.
Revival of Eclipsed Laws
A distinctive feature of the Doctrine of Eclipse is that once the inconsistency with fundamental rights is removed, the previously eclipsed law automatically becomes enforceable again without needing fresh legislation. This can occur through:
- Amendment to the relevant Fundamental Right, or
- Judicial interpretation that resolves the inconsistency.
Doctrine of Eclipse vs. Doctrine of Severability
The Doctrine of Severability is related but distinct:
- Doctrine of Eclipse makes the whole law dormant, not null.
- Doctrine of Severability allows the courts to strike down only the unconstitutional part while keeping the rest valid.
Both doctrines help avoid the complete obliteration of old statutes where only certain parts conflict with the Constitution.
Judicial Development and Cases
Some key judicial developments around the Doctrine of Eclipse include:
- Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955):
Established that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with fundamental rights is not void but merely unenforceable (eclipsed). - Keshava Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay:
Clarified that Article 13 operates prospectively, so a pre-constitutional law remains valid for past transactions but is inoperative if inconsistent with fundamental rights. - Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh:
Reinforced the doctrine’s restriction to pre-constitutional laws.
Importance in Constitutional Law
The Doctrine of Eclipse plays several important roles:
- Balances old laws and new constitutional values — preserving continuity without compromising fundamental rights. (
- Ensures that historic laws aren’t wiped out entirely but are held in abeyance when unconstitutional.
- Respects the supremacy of the Constitution while acknowledging legal history.
Conclusion
The Doctrine of Eclipse is a nuanced and elegant part of Indian constitutional jurisprudence. Instead of erasing conflicting laws entirely, it allows them to lie dormant — subject to revival when constitutional harmony is restored. This doctrine reflects both the rigor and resilience of constitutional law in balancing rights, continuity, and justice.
After Completing my LLB hons, I started writing content about legal concepts and case laws while practicing. I finally started Law Shore in 2024 with an aim to help other students and lawyers.
