Skip to main content

Followers

Question-09 निम्न पर टिप्पणी लिखिए- आच्छादन , पृथक्करण का सिद्धांत

 Write notes on following :

(i) आच्छादन का सिद्धांत  Doctrine of Eclipse

(ii) पृथक्करण का सिद्धांत  Doctrine of Severability

Answer(i)

The Doctrine of Eclipse is a legal principle in constitutional law, particularly in the context of the interpretation of statutes. It is used when a law or provision conflicts with the Constitution. The doctrine essentially states that if a law is inconsistent with a constitutional provision, it is not necessarily void, but rather "eclipsed" or overshadowed by the Constitution. The law remains valid, but its operation is suspended until the inconsistency is resolved.

Here’s a pointwise explanation:

1.            Nature of Eclipse: Under this doctrine, if a law or statutory provision is inconsistent with a constitutional provision, it does not become void but gets eclipsed by the Constitution. This means it remains in the statute book but is inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency.

2.            Temporary Inoperability: The law is temporarily suspended but not completely void. The suspension occurs only to the extent of the inconsistency with the Constitution. The law is said to be overshadowed by the constitutional provision.

3.            Resumption upon Change: If the constitutional provision that conflicts with the law is amended or the conflict is resolved, the law that was previously eclipsed may regain its full effect and operate once again.

4.            Constitutional Supremacy: The doctrine reinforces the supremacy of the Constitution, highlighting that no law, however old, can operate in contravention of the Constitution. A law that is inconsistent with the Constitution will remain inactive but will not automatically be nullified.

5.            Application to Pre-Constitutional Laws: This doctrine is often applied to pre-constitutional laws that were inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution. These laws are not void but are suspended to the extent of their inconsistency with the Constitution.

6.            Example: A pre-constitutional law that violates the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution might be eclipsed. However, if the Constitution is amended in such a way that the law is no longer inconsistent with the Constitution, the law may once again become operational.

Case Law Example:

The Doctrine of Eclipse was discussed in cases like Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) and Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. v. A.D. Shroff (1954), where the courts clarified that a law inconsistent with a fundamental right doesn't get wiped out but merely becomes unenforceable while it is inconsistent.

In conclusion, the Doctrine of Eclipse ensures that laws which conflict with constitutional provisions do not become void, but are merely inoperative until the conflict is resolved, maintaining the constitution’s supremacy while safeguarding the continued existence of such laws.

Answer-(ii) The Doctrine of Severability is a principle of statutory interpretation in law that allows a court to remove or "sever" an unconstitutional part of a statute while leaving the rest of it intact, if possible. It is used when part of a law is found to be invalid, but the rest of the law can still stand and be enforced. This doctrine ensures that laws are not entirely struck down because of one defective provision, allowing the remaining provisions to continue in effect.

Here’s a pointwise explanation of the Doctrine of Severability:

1. Concept of Severability:

             The doctrine allows courts to separate the valid and invalid parts of a statute.

             When a particular provision of a statute is found to be unconstitutional or invalid, only that part is severed (removed), while the remaining provisions stay effective.

2. Legal Basis:

             It assumes that if the legislature had known a provision would be struck down, they would have still passed the rest of the law.

             The doctrine maintains the integrity of the law by ensuring that invalid parts don’t invalidate the whole statute.

3. Judicial Role:

             The court is tasked with determining whether the invalid portion of the statute is severable from the rest.

             If the invalid provision is essential to the statute's purpose, the entire law may be struck down. However, if the provision can be removed without affecting the law's purpose, it will be severed.

4. Principle of Presumption:

             The presumption is that a statute is severable unless the legislature would not have passed the law without the invalid provision.

             Courts will often try to preserve the remaining parts of the statute unless it is impossible to separate the valid and invalid portions.

5. Application in Case Law:

             Courts may apply the Doctrine of Severability in cases where only part of a statute is challenged. For example, if a law has an unconstitutional provision (such as one violating fundamental rights), the court may strike down just that provision and allow the rest of the law to stand.

             This doctrine is commonly used in constitutional law to ensure that unconstitutional laws don't lead to the complete loss of an otherwise valid law.

6. Example:

             If a statute contains multiple sections and one section is declared unconstitutional (e.g., violating freedom of speech), the court may remove just that section. The remaining sections of the statute would still remain enforceable if they are not dependent on the unconstitutional section.

7. Limitations:

             If the invalid part is so central to the statute that its removal changes the entire purpose of the law, the whole statute might be struck down.

             If the severability clause is not included in the statute or if there is a clear legislative intent to have the whole statute fall if one part is invalid, the court may not sever the provision.

8. Severability Clause:

             A severability clause in the statute explicitly expresses the legislature's intention that the remaining provisions should continue to operate even if one provision is declared unconstitutional.

In summary, the Doctrine of Severability ensures that only the unconstitutional part of a statute is invalidated while preserving the functioning of the rest of the law. It helps maintain the legislative intent and avoids the complete invalidation of statutes based on one defect.

_____________________________________________

Doctrine of Severability:

Significance:

The Doctrine of Severability is important in constitutional law and statutory interpretation as it helps maintain the constitutionality and validity of a statute. This doctrine allows courts to remove or "sever" unconstitutional or invalid portions of a statute while preserving the valid and constitutional sections. It ensures that even if part of a law is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the statute can still stand and be enforced.

Brief Summary:

The Doctrine of Severability operates under the principle that if a portion of a statute is found to be unconstitutional or invalid, it can be "severed" from the rest of the statute, leaving the remaining provisions intact. Courts apply this doctrine by asking whether the statute would have been enacted without the invalid portion. If so, the valid provisions can continue to operate independently. It ensures that legislative intent is respected, as far as possible, even in the face of constitutional challenges.

Doctrine of Eclipse:

Significance:

The Doctrine of Eclipse is primarily applied in constitutional law, particularly in the context of laws that may conflict with fundamental rights. It allows a law that is inconsistent with a fundamental right to remain dormant (or "eclipsed") until the constitutional obstacle is removed. Once the obstacle is removed, the law can be revived or enforced again.

Brief Summary:

The Doctrine of Eclipse applies when a pre-constitutional law is inconsistent with fundamental rights. Such a law doesn't become void but is temporarily "eclipsed" due to the conflict with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution. The law remains dormant until the constitutional provision causing the conflict is amended or modified, at which point the law can be revived. This doctrine ensures that laws do not automatically become void but merely inactive, allowing for the possibility of revival in the future.

In summary, Severability allows courts to separate unconstitutional portions of a statute, while Eclipse applies to laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights, rendering them dormant but not void.

 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

चिल्ड्रन डे की ढ़ेरों बधाईयां

  मेरे प्यारे नन्हें बच्चों!   पहले, मैं सभी बच्चों को इस दिन की बहुत-बहुत शुभकामनाएँ देना चाहता हूँ। आप सभी इस दुनिया का सबसे अनमोल हिस्सा हैं। आपके शिक्षक उम्र और तजुर्बे में आपसे काफी बड़े है, बढ़ती उम्र उनके माथे में अनायास सिकन लाती है l दुनियाभर की बेमतलब जिम्मेदारियों के बोझ में शिक्षक को सुकून तब मिलता है जब आपका मुस्कुराता हुआ चेहरा सामने आता है l आपको शायद अभी इसका अहसास न हो, लेकिन इस बात में कोई दो राय नहीं है कि आप सभी उस ईश्वर/भगवान या उस अलौकिक परमतत्व के प्रतिरूप है l  चिल्ड्रन डे, जो कि हमारे प्रिय पंडित जवाहरलाल नेहरू के जन्मदिन पर मनाया जाता है, हमें यह याद दिलाता है कि बच्चों का भविष्य हमारे समाज का भविष्य है। नेहरू जी ने हमेशा बच्चों के विकास और शिक्षा को प्राथमिकता दी। उन्होंने कहा था कि "बच्चे हमारे भविष्य हैं," और यही कारण है कि हमें उन्हें प्यार, देखभाल और सही दिशा में मार्गदर्शन देना चाहिए। आज का दिन सिर्फ उत्सव मनाने के लिए नहीं हैं, बल्कि हमें यह भी सोचना है कि हम बच्चों को कैसे एक सुरक्षित, खुशहाल और समृद्ध जीवन दे सकते हैं। हमें बच्चों क...

1. B.Shah vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, AIR 1978 SC 12

 Ref : AIR 1978 SC 12 Sub :- This case is based on Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 Facts of the case:- 1. A woman by the name of Sulbamal worked in an industry named Mount Stuart Estate which was related to planta- tion. 2. Sulbamal gave an application for maternity leave. The estimated period for delivery was 16-12-1967 and she deliv- ered the child on this very date. 3. Maternity benefit was given by way of salary for 72 work- ing days by the employer to the woman workman, but in this period Sunday being the holiday, was excluded by the employer. 4. Thus, being dissatisfied with the amount so provided, she filed an application before the employer in this regard. 5. It was demanded by the woman workman that she should be given full benefit of 12 weeks under the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 which is of full 84 days, not of 72 days because Sunday is also included in it. 6. But, she was denied of the payment of full 84 days by the employer. Trial Court...

भारत का सर्वोच्च न्यायालय

  संगठन चार्ट प्रधान सचिव रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायिक सूचीकरण) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार / एआर-सह-पीएस शाखा अधिकारी/कोर्ट मास्टर व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायिक प्रशासन) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (खरीद एवं भंडार) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार-I (गोपनीय कक्ष) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायाधीश प्रशासन एवं अंतर्राष्ट्रीय संबंध) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (प्रौद्योगिकी) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार(कंप्यूटर) शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी/ तकनीक. सहायक-सह-प्रोग्रामर रजिस्ट्रार-II (गोपनीय कक्ष) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप रजिस्ट्रार सहायक रजिस्ट्रार शाखा अधिकारी व्यवहार करने वाले अधिकारी रजिस्ट्रार (न्यायालय एवं भवन) अतिरिक्त रजिस्ट्रार उप...