Doctrine of Eclipse in Indian Constitutional Law: Explanation and Cases

MEANING

    The Doctrine of eclipse rooted in  Article 13, Part III of Constitution of India is a legal principle which means to treat the law existing before the commencement of the Constitution of India and which are inconsistent with the fundamental rights contained in Part III to be dormant but not void. They may be revived later through constitutional amendments to make them valid.

PRE-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

    Article 13(1) says all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part III shall be void to the extent of inconsistency. According to Article 13(1), laws includes any Ordinance, Order, Bye-law, Rules, Regulation, Notification, Custom or Usage having in the territory of India the force of law. "Law in force" includes laws passed or made by a legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any past thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.

    If there are any inconsistency with the fundamental rights in the pre-Constitution law, declaration by the Court is necessary to make the law as invalid. This means that such inconsistent law shall not be wiped out but rather kept in moribund state for period till it is revived by new Constitutional amendment.

    Article 13(1) of the Constitution is prospective in nature. That is under Article 13(1), all laws or rights applies to events that happened after it is created.

    Article 13(1) is known by Doctrine of eclipse and it was first introduced in a landmark case Keshava Madhav Menon vs. State of Bombay AIR 1951 SC 128.

    In that case, it was ruled that fundamental rights are prospective in nature. the fact in the case is that a criminal proceedings was started against the Petitioner under the Press(Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 in respect of a pamphlet published in 1949. During the pendency, the Constitution of India came into force. The appellant contended that the Act is inconsistent with the fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and hence void. Therefore the proceedings against him could not be continued.

    The Supreme Court held, Article 13(1) would not apply to his case as the offence was committed before the present Constitution came into force and therefore the proceedings stated against him in 1949 were not affected.

    It was also held laws are not wiped out entirely from the statute book. They exist for all past transactions and for the enforcement of rights acquired and liabilities incurred before the present Constitution came into force and for determination of right of persons who have not been given fundamental rights by Constitution, for example non-citizen.

    In another landmark case, Bhikaji Narain Dharas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1955, which underlied the doctrine, Supreme Court held the effect of Amendment was to remove the shadows and to make the impugned Act free from all blemish and infirmity. it become enforceable against Citizens as well as non-citizen after the Constitutional impediment was removed.

POST CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

    Article 13(2) clearly prohibits State to make any law which takes away or abridges rights conferred by the Constitution. If any law is made in contravention of fundamental rights, then such law will be ultravires and void to the extent of the contravention. it will be called still-born law and cannot be revived and cannot be removed by subsequent amendment of the constitution (Deep Chand vs State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959)

    In Deep Chand's case, it was held doctrine of eclipse does not apply to post-Constitutional laws and therefore a subsequent Constitutional amendment cannot revive it.

    However, in Mahendra Lal Jain vs. State of U.P AIR 1963, Supreme Court held the doctrine of eclipse applies only to pre-Constitution law under Article 13(1) and not to post-Constitution law under Article 13(2) because voidness of pre-Constitution law is not from its inception but only from the date of the commencement of the Constitution, whereas voidness of a post-Constitutional law is from its very inception and such a law cannot therefore exist for any purpose.

    Facts of case on Janurary 25, 1952 an agreement of permanent lease was executed by the Maharaja Bahadur in favour of Petitioner and one Virendra Goyal of a land measuring 1069.68 acre situated in a District of Dehra Dun in Uttar Pradesh. The lease also provided that the lessor had given the right of hereditary tenancy within the meaning of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 to the lessees. A day after the agreement of lease was executed, the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 came into force on January 26, 1951 and the land fell within the meaning of this Act.

    Further, the petitioner was desist from doing anything which was contrary to the U.P. Private Forests Act, 1948. In the meantime, the U.P. Land Tenures (Regulation of Transfers) Act, 1952 [Transfer Act] came into force on 21 May 1952 with retrospective effect which declared that all transfers made by intermediaries after May 22 were void. Therefore, the Petitioner challenged the Constitutional validity of the Transfer Act under Article 32 of the Consitution and applicability of the U.P. Private Forests Act. On March 1956, the Indian Forest (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1956 was passed which introduced new chapter and added in Forest Act.

 The petitioner contended that Transfer Act and the Forest Amendment Act were unconstitutional and that the restrictions imposed upon him under these two Acts were illegal. The respondent contended that the two Acts were valid and the petitioner acquired no right under the lease and had no right to maintain a writ petition under Article 32.

  The Apex Court held that so long as the lease stood, the petitioner had a right to maintain the petition. The lease created a right in presenti and not merely future right. The Court further held, the Transfer Act was unconstitutional because it deprived petitioner of his property without providing for payment of any compensation and contravened Article 31 (Originally Right to Property but was repealed by 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978). As a result the Transfer Act was struck down as unconstitutional and of no force and effect. But Court validated the Forest Amendment Act, classifying it as a valid regulatory measures supplemental to the existing forest legislation

  Supreme Court said that the doctrine of eclipse will apply to pre-Constitution law which are governed by Article 13(1) and would not apply to post-Constitution law which are governed by Article 13(2).

    In State of Gujarat vs. Ambica Mills AIR 1974,  Supreme Court overtuned its judgment as held in Deep Chand's case. it held post-Constitution law which is inconsistent with fundamental rights is not nullity or non-existent in all cases and for all purposes.

 The respondent, a non-citizen Company registered under the Companies Act filed a Writ petition challenging the validity of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 as unconstitutional on the ground that its provisions violated the fundamental rights of citizens, employers and employees and therefore they were void under Article 13(2) of the Constitution.

Supreme Court held, a post-Constitution law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by Article 19 will be operative as regards to non-citizens because fundamental rights are not available to non-citizens. Such a law will become void or non-existent only against citizens because fundamental rights are conferred on them.

The Court held the provisions of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 were not non-existent, but were valid laws enacted by a competent legislature in respect of non-citizens and the company could not take the plea that its right to property was being taken or abridged without authority of law.

The post-Constitutional law which is incompetent with fundamental rights is void only against citizen and non-citizen cannot take advantage of the voidness of law - Court held.

    The doctrine of eclipse was also applied in case of Dulare Lodh vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur AIR 1984. In this case, Supreme Court applied the doctrine even against citizen.

    Fact of the case is that the Respondent landlord, Additional District Judge filed a suit for ejectment in the year 1971 and obtained a decree for ejectment against the appellant Tenant. By virtue of the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the case was transferred to the Court of the Small Causes. The Small Causes Court tried the case and passed a decree of Eviction in favour of the Respondent landlord. the tenant did not object to the jurisdiction nor did he prefer an appeal or revision against the judgment and the same became final. Therefore, the decree-holder filed an execution petition. the Appellant judgment-debtor raised a jurisdictional objection by raising the issue that the transfer of the suit before conferment of the jurisdiction to the judge, Small Causes Court was not competent and therefore the decree was not executable.

    Decree-holder contended that the suit would have to be tried all over again and the Court held that the decree was without jurisdiction. So, the decree became inexecutable even after 13 years of litigation and the landlord was not able to get possession.

    But by virtue of Section 9 of the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Amendment Act, 1976 which was made applicable with retrospective effect to remove the injustice and remedy the mischief which had been caused to decree holders, the decree became executable.

    The Supreme Court emphasized, the object was to revive the decree which had become inexecutable. It was held that by virtue of the Amendment Act, 1976 the decree which was lying dormant and could not be executed became executable by applying doctrine of eclipse.

    Therefore, the doctrine also applies to post-Constitutional laws and this doctrine has been applied by Supreme Court in several case.