Doctrine of Eclipse is the constitutional law principle that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with fundamental rights is not void ab initio (from the beginning) but is merely "eclipsed" or overshadowed by the fundamental right — it remains dormant and can be revived if the inconsistency is subsequently removed by a constitutional amendment. Under Indian law, this doctrine is derived from Article 13(1) of the Constitution, which provides that all laws in force at the commencement of the Constitution, to the extent of their inconsistency with Part III, shall be void.
Legal definition
Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India provides:
Article 13(1): All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
The Doctrine of Eclipse operates on the distinction between a law being "void" and being "void ab initio." Article 13(1) uses the word "void" — not "repealed" or "dead." The Supreme Court in Bhikaji Narain held that this means the pre-constitutional law is not wiped off the statute book; rather, it becomes unenforceable to the extent of its inconsistency with fundamental rights. If the inconsistency is subsequently removed — for example, by a constitutional amendment that modifies the fundamental right in question — the eclipsed law revives automatically without the need for fresh legislation.
The doctrine applies only to pre-constitutional laws (laws in force before January 26, 1950). For post-constitutional laws enacted by a competent legislature that violate fundamental rights, Article 13(2) renders them void ab initio — the doctrine of eclipse does not apply to save them.
How courts have interpreted this term
Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay [AIR 1951 SC 128]
The Supreme Court laid the conceptual foundation for the doctrine by holding that fundamental rights operate prospectively, not retrospectively. A pre-constitutional law that is inconsistent with a fundamental right is not void for all purposes and for all time — it remains valid for acts done before the Constitution came into force and becomes void only prospectively from January 26, 1950, to the extent of the inconsistency.
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1955 SC 781]
The Supreme Court explicitly propounded and named the Doctrine of Eclipse. The case involved the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947, which authorised state monopoly in motor transport. This law was inconsistent with Article 19(1)(g) (freedom to practise any profession or carry on any trade) at the time the Constitution commenced. However, the First Constitutional Amendment (1951) inserted Article 19(6), which permitted the State to carry on any trade or business. Chief Justice S.R. Das held that the pre-constitutional law was not dead but merely "eclipsed for the time being" by the fundamental right, and that the constitutional amendment removed the shadow, reviving the law.
Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1959 SC 648]
The Court reaffirmed that the doctrine applies only to pre-constitutional laws. For post-constitutional laws, if the legislature lacked the competence to enact the law (because it violated fundamental rights at the time of enactment), the law is still-born and cannot be revived by a subsequent constitutional amendment. This distinction is crucial: pre-constitutional laws are merely eclipsed, but post-constitutional void laws are dead from inception.
Why this matters
The Doctrine of Eclipse has significant practical implications for the status of pre-independence and early post-independence legislation. India inherited a vast body of colonial-era laws — many of which were inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the 1950 Constitution. Rather than treating all such laws as permanently void, the doctrine preserves them in a dormant state, allowing them to revive if the constitutional landscape changes.
For practitioners, the doctrine becomes relevant when dealing with old legislation that was once considered void for violating fundamental rights but may have been revived by subsequent constitutional amendments. For example, laws restricting trade or property rights that were inconsistent with Articles 19(1)(f) or 19(1)(g) may have been revived by amendments to Article 19(6) or by the deletion of Article 19(1)(f) through the 44th Amendment.
The critical limitation of the doctrine is its inapplicability to post-constitutional laws. If a legislature enacts a law after 1950 that violates fundamental rights, and the law is struck down, a subsequent constitutional amendment that removes the inconsistency does not automatically revive the struck-down law. The legislature must re-enact it.
Related terms
Constitutional foundations:
Related doctrines:
Frequently asked questions
Does the Doctrine of Eclipse apply to post-constitutional laws?
No. The Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws — laws in force before January 26, 1950. If a post-constitutional law is enacted in violation of fundamental rights, it is void ab initio from the date of its enactment. A subsequent constitutional amendment removing the inconsistency does not revive such a law; the legislature must re-enact it. This distinction was established in Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959).
What is the difference between "void" and "void ab initio" under Article 13?
Under Article 13(1), pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are "void" — meaning unenforceable to the extent of the inconsistency, but not wiped off the statute book. They can revive if the inconsistency is removed. Under Article 13(2), post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights are void ab initio — they are treated as never having existed in law. This distinction is the foundation of the Doctrine of Eclipse.
Can an eclipsed law be enforced against citizens?
No. A law that is eclipsed by a fundamental right cannot be enforced against any citizen who enjoys that fundamental right, for the duration of the eclipse. However, the law may continue to apply to non-citizens or entities not protected by the relevant fundamental right. If the eclipse is removed (for example, by a constitutional amendment), the law becomes fully enforceable again.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.