The doctrine of eclipse explains that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are not entirely invalid but are rendered unenforceable; they remain dormant until validated by a higher court or legislative amendment. The Supreme Court of India, through cases like P. Rathinam and Gian Kaur, demonstrated this principle by ruling that certain sections of the Indian Penal Code were initially unconstitutional but were later reinstated, showing that inconsistencies with fundamental rights can be rectified. Therefore, pre-constitution laws are not null and void ab initio but can regain validity when conflicts with fundamental rights are resolved.

1. Name – Kevin Parekh
Course – BBA LLB SEM IV
Division – B
Roll no. – 2
Submitted to – Anuradha Girme Ma’am

2. The doctrine of eclipse means that an
existing law inconsistent with
a Fundamental Right, though becomes
inoperative from the date of the
commencement of the Constitution, is not
dead altogether. It is overshadowed by
the Fundamental Right and remain
dormant, but is not dead.

3.  When a Court strikes a part of law, it becomes
unenforceable. Hence, an 'eclipse' is said to be cast
on it. The law just becomes invalid but continues to
exist. The eclipse is removed when another (probably
a higher level court) makes the law valid again or an
amendment is brought to it by way of legislation.
 The Supreme Court of India, in P Ratinam case, has
held Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 unconstitutional. Hence, the section was under
eclipse. However, a constitutional bench in Gian Kaur
case reversed this decision and held the section as
constitutional whereby the eclipse was removed and it
because operable again.

4.  Proceedings had been started against the appellant for
an offence punishable u/s 18 of the Indian Press
Emergency Powers Act, 1934 in respect of pamphlet
published in 1949. The appellant's contention was that
the Act was inconsistent with fundamental rights
conferred by the Constitution and therefore it had
become void u/Article 19(1) after 26th January, 1950
and the proceedings against him could not be
continued. Supreme Court has held that all laws in
force at the commencement of the Constitution which
are inconsistent with Part-III of the Constitution, shall
be void to the extent of inconsistency. Article 13(1) had
no retrospective effect but only prospective in its
operation.

5. Supreme Court held Sec. 309 of IPC as
unconstitutional .
But it was not removed from law books
and from act.

6. In this case Supreme Court reversed the
judgement given in P. Rathinam case and
Sec. 309 of IPC again came into existence
which was not removed from the act
previously but only overshadowed.

7.  Thus the Doctrine of Eclipse provides for the
validation of Pre-Constitution Laws that violate
fundamental rights upon the premise that such
laws are not null and void ab initio but become
unenforceable only to the extent of such
inconsistency with the fundamental rights.
 If any subsequent amendment to the
Constitution removes the inconsistency or the
conflict of the existing law with the fundamental
rights, then the Eclipse vanishes and that
particular law again becomes active again.