Background
The Doctrine of Eclipse and the Doctrine of Repugnancy are two important constitutional doctrines that play a vital role in understanding the legislative framework of India. Both doctrines ensure harmony between constitutional provisions and legislative powers, though they apply in different contexts.
The Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws that become inconsistent with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. It ensures that such laws are not permanently void but remain inoperative to the extent of inconsistency. This doctrine was established by the Supreme Court to safeguard the continuity of laws while preserving the supremacy of the Constitution.
The Doctrine of Repugnancy, on the other hand, deals with conflicts between laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures under the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule. It maintains legislative balance between the Centre and the States by ensuring that national uniformity is preserved whenever a conflict arises.

Important Facts for Prelims Exams

  1. The Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws under Article 13(1).

  2. It was first explained in the case of Bhikhaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955).

  3. It deals with the inconsistency of laws with Fundamental Rights.

  4. Such laws are not completely void; they remain dormant until the inconsistency is removed.

  5. The Doctrine of Repugnancy arises under Article 254 of the Constitution.

  6. It applies when both the Parliament and State Legislatures make laws on the same subject in the Concurrent List.

  7. If there is a conflict, the Central law prevails over the State law.

  8. The State law may prevail if it has received the President’s assent under Article 254(2).

  9. Both doctrines ensure harmony within the Indian constitutional and federal framework.

  10. Important cases include Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959) and Zaverbhai v. State of Bombay (1954).

Main Provisions and Key Facts

  1. Doctrine of Eclipse

    • Applicable only to laws made before the Constitution came into force (before 26 January 1950).

    • If such a law violates any Fundamental Right, it becomes inoperative and unenforceable to that extent.

    • It is not null and void but remains in a shadow until the inconsistency is removed.

    • When the inconsistency is removed (for example, by a constitutional amendment), the law revives automatically.

    • The doctrine is based on the idea that pre-constitutional laws were valid when enacted and hence cannot be treated as void ab initio.

    • The principle was reaffirmed in State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974).

  2. Doctrine of Repugnancy

    • Applicable to laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures on Concurrent List subjects.

    • When both make laws and there is a direct conflict, the Central law prevails.

    • The test of repugnancy depends on whether both laws can operate simultaneously.

    • If both laws cannot coexist, the State law becomes void to the extent of inconsistency.

    • The State law may still prevail within that State if it has received Presidential assent under Article 254(2).

    • Parliament may later override such State law by enacting a new law on the same subject.

    • The doctrine ensures that national interest and legal uniformity are maintained.

Significance

  1. The Doctrine of Eclipse ensures continuity of laws while preserving constitutional supremacy.

  2. It protects legislative intent by preventing unnecessary invalidation of older laws.

  3. It provides flexibility to the legal system by allowing revival of laws after the removal of inconsistency.

  4. The Doctrine of Repugnancy ensures federal balance by clearly defining the supremacy of Parliament in legislative conflicts.

  5. It promotes harmony and consistency in law-making across the nation.

  6. Both doctrines together uphold the rule of law and constitutional coherence in governance.

Criticism or Limitations

  1. The Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws and not to post-constitutional ones.

  2. It does not protect citizens from the effects of unconstitutional post-independence legislation.

  3. The Doctrine of Repugnancy sometimes limits the legislative autonomy of States.

  4. Dependence on Presidential assent can reduce the independent legislative power of State Legislatures.

  5. Determining the exact extent of inconsistency between Central and State laws can be complex.

Key Points for Exams

  • Article 13(1): Related to the Doctrine of Eclipse.

  • Article 254: Related to the Doctrine of Repugnancy.

  • Important Cases:

    • Bhikhaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955)

    • Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959)

    • Zaverbhai v. State of Bombay (1954)

    • State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974)

  • Keywords: Fundamental Rights, Pre-Constitutional Laws, Legislative Conflict, Federalism, Constitutional Supremacy.

In Short
The Doctrine of Eclipse deals with pre-constitutional laws that become dormant due to conflict with Fundamental Rights, while the Doctrine of Repugnancy deals with legislative conflicts between the Centre and the States. Together, they safeguard constitutional harmony and maintain the balance between continuity of law and federal supremacy.