According to the Doctrine of Eclipse, a law that violates fundamental rights is not always unconstitutional. Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, which addresses legislation that are incompatible with or violate fundamental rights, has a connection to this idea. It’s not fully gone, but the fundamental right has eclipsed it. When the Constitution went into effect, the case was still unresolved, raising difficulties about the prospective and retrospective nature of Article 13(1) and the term “invalid.”

Elements:

• It must be pre-constitutional law and must contradict with fundamental rights.
• The law does not become a dead letter, but simply inoperative;
• If the Fundamental Right is amended in the future, the assailed law will immediately become operational.

Doctrine of Eclipse and Article 368

The Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act of 1953 was challenged in I. C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab 1967 AIR 1643 on the grounds of violating the fundamental right to hold and acquire property and practice any profession. The Golaknath case debated the validity and absoluteness of Article 368. The Parliament Legislature was given restrictive amending powers under Article 368 with no authority to amend the fundamental rights. Thus, Article 368 was eclipsed. The judgment was overruled in the legendary case of Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 1461 It provided the Parliament powers to amend the fundamental rights of the Indian Constitution, which removed the Eclipse from Article 368.

Another such case was the  Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo Vs. Union of India1951 AIR 458 This case pertained to the discussion of the viability of the first amendment of 1951 which retrenched the right to property of the citizens. The Supreme Court stated that Article 368 which gives the power to amend the Constitution also includes the right to amend fundamental rights. 

The judgement in the Golaknath case was overturned in the historic  Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461 judgement where the Supreme Court declared that the Parliament has the authority to amend the Constitution as per Article 368 but it has to ensure that there is no change in the basic structure of the Constitution. As a result, the eclipse on Article 368 was removed.

Doctrine of Eclipse and Section 309

The Doctrine extended its provisions under the Indian Penal Code in the cases of Rathinam and Gian Kaur. Section 309 of the IPC, which criminalizes attempts to suicide, was challenged in the case of Rathinam v. Union of India. Section 309 was deemed unconstitutional as the Court observed that Article 21 holds the right to live, which also induces the right not to live. A constitutional bench reversed the judgment of the Rathinam case and upheld the validity of Section 309 in the case of Gian Kaur v. the State of Punjab. Thus, removing the Eclipse on Section 309 to make it operational again.

Fundamental rights and amendments

The Court had to decide whether the challenged Act violated Article 19(1)(a) and, if so, whether it should be declared unlawful. A prevalent misconception is that if a legislation or legal provision violates one or more fundamental rights, it should be judged to be repealed. In actuality, however, such an inoperable component remains dormant and assumes the form of a sleeping arrangement. It is not void or a nullity from the beginning.

If in the near future there is any amendment to the relevant fundamental right, the doctrine of eclipse will automatically re-operate the impugned law.

Article 13 [10] of the Constitution, which outlines four principles for the use of the right, is the environment in which the doctrine’s theory is stated. Additionally, it addresses laws that are contradictory or violate fundamental rights. The article makes it very plain that the State lacks the authority to enact or change any laws in a way that, if put into practice, would abrogate the constitutionally given fundamental rights. If such a law were to pass, it would also be immediately declared void. In this context, “law” refers to any order, bye-law, regulation, notification, custom, or usage that is in effect in Indian territory.

Difference between doctrine of eclipse and severability?

Doctrine of eclipse and severability are fundamentally different from one another because the latter can be used to analyse post-constitutional laws. A completely different idea, severability renders the conflicting sections invalid from the start while maintaining the applicability and functionality of the rest of the act..

Conclusion:

The Doctrine of Eclipse is a slightly sophisticated rule of law principle that has prevented complete repeal of pre-constitutional law. It’s crucial to remember that there is still some uncertainty about the doctrine’s applicability to post-constitutional laws. Contrarily, this ideology has been successful in bringing together pre- and post-constitutional views on many laws, ensuring the success of constitutionalism in every sense.