DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE
It must be noted beforehand that the Doctrine of eclipse does not apply to post-constitutional
laws as held in Deep Chand v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 which iterated that a post-
constitutional law made under Article 13(2) which contravenes a fundamental right is nullity
from its inception and a still-born law. It is void ab initio.
In Mahendra Lal Jain v. State of U.P., AIR 1963, the Supreme Court approved the above
majority view and held that the doctrine of eclipse only applies to pre-constitution law under
Article 13(1).
But, in State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills, AIR 1974, the Supreme Court modified its view
as expressed in above cases and added certain exceptions. It held that the doctrine of absolute
nullity is not an absolute rule and there are many exceptions to it. A post-Constitution law
which takes away or abridges the right conferred by Article 19 will be operative as regards to
non-citizens as 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. No non-citizen (like a company etc.) can take advantage of the voidness of law.
Accordingly, the Court held that the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 was valid in
respect of non-citizens.
Coming to pre-Constitution laws, on which the doctrine of eclipse explicitly applies, the
doctrine lays down that any pre-Constitution law which violates fundamental right (after the
coming into force of Constitution of India) is not nullity or void ab initio. Such laws are not
wiped out entirely from statute book and they exist for all past transactions. Moreover, it is
only for the citizens that they remain in dormant condition, and not non-citizens who are not
entitled to fundmental rights.
A leading case which led to the incarnation of this principle was Bhikaji v. State of M.P.,
AIR 1955. In this case, the impugned act, although valid when enacted in 1947, became void
on the coming into force of the Constitution in 1950 as they violated Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution. However, in 1951, Clause (6) of Article 19 was amended subsequently by the
Constitution (1st Amendment) Act so as to authorize the Government to monopolise any
business. Thus, the court held that it immediately became enforceable on both citizens and
non-citizens after the constitutional impediment was removed and held that, the act was
merely eclipsed for the time being by the fundamental rights. As soon as the eclipse is
removed, the law begins to operate from the date of such removal.