One of the most commendable aspects of the Indian Constitution is the Fundamental Rights that it guarantees to its citizens. In every democratic nation, civil liberties are the foundation upon which the people's rights are built, and they are protected and guaranteed by a supreme authority. The Indian Constitution offers several fundamental rights to its citizens, which are essentially contained in Part III, ranging from Article 12 to Article 32. The judiciary is entrusted with the main responsibility of protecting the fundamental rights, adjudicating on matters that come before it.

Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution contests the doctrine of eclipse, declaring that any law passed prior to the Constitution's commencement date must comply with Part III. Any statute that contravenes the guidelines set forth in Part III of the Indian Constitution is considered null and void, except if invalidated by parliament. In this instance, the statue will be considered moribund rather than dead.

Therefore, any law passed before Indian independence is considered void to the extent that it goes against fundamental rights. Although the entire statute is not void, if any part of the law is inconsistent with Part III of the constitution, it is declared void. The law is not dead, but it lies in a moribund condition at the disposal of Parliament.

This doctrine makes any law inconsistent with Part III of the constitution to be considered void to the extent of the inconsistency. The doctrine highlights the importance of fundamental rights and makes them explicit. The doctrine applies only to pre-constitutional laws, not post-constitutional laws.

https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/doctrine-of-eclipse/#:~:text=This%20doctrine%20emanates%20directly%20from%20Article%2013(1)%20of%20the%20Constitution%20that%20is%20a%20part%20of%20the%20fundamental%20rights%2C%20which%20states%2C%20%E2%80%9Call%20laws%20in%20force%20in%20the%20territory

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE CASE LAWS BASED ON THE DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE:

BHIKAJI NARAIN DHAKRAS V/S STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AIR 1955:

Before the Indian Constitution's commencement in 1950, the Madhya Pradesh Government enacted a law to nationalize motor transport, which was challenged by a petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Central Government amended the act to enable the state to nationalize motor transport. The Supreme Court held that the Madhya Pradesh law to nationalize motor transport was cured by the 4^(th) Amendment Act 1955, and thus, the Doctrine of Eclipse was applied in the specific case.

Fact: The C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act of 1948 gave the State Government the authority to take over the entire Province's motor transport industry without consulting motor transport operators. Although this clause was legitimate when enacted, it contradicted Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution when the Constitution took effect in 1950. However, the Constitution (1st Amendment Act) revised Clause (6) of Article 19 in 1951 to allow any business to be monopolized by the government. According to the Supreme Court, the modification repealed the shadow and rendered the contested Act fault-free. When the constitutional obstacle was removed, the law became enforceable against citizens and non-citizens. The fundamental rights temporarily superseded this law. The law becomes applicable as soon as the eclipse is lifted.

Following this judgment, pre-constitutional laws are no longer considered void but remain suspended, meaning pre-constitutional laws are eclipsed by Part III of the Constitution. The doctrine of eclipse changed the interpretation of the word given in Article 13 of the Constitution, and it was only after this judgment that the doctrine gained prominence. If any fundamental rights are amended, these pre-constitutional laws, which are otherwise suspended, may become valid.

The case of Deep Chand v/s State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (AIR 1959 SC 648) involved a dispute between the appellant, Deep Chand and the respondents, State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The petitioners were operating stage carriages on various routes within Uttar Pradesh with licenses obtained under the 1939 Motor Vehicles Act, using government-owned buses. However, the State of Uttar Pradesh announced the nationalisation of routes under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955, which was passed by the legislature. Notice was given to the appellants under Section 5 of the Act to voice any reservations following which, the objections received were notified to be heard by a Board.

While the objections filed by all the operators other than those of the Agra region were heard and an inquiry was adjourned, the operators of the Agra region failed to do so. Consequently, a notification was issued under section 8 of the Act, and published in the U.P. Gazette after which the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Agra, sent an order, alleged to have been issued by the Transport Commissioner to the operators of the Agra region, barring them from operating their stage carriages on the designated routes, and also notifying them that their permits would be transferred to other routes.

The primary issue referred to the court of law was whether the doctrine of eclipse applied only to pre-constitutional laws or whether it could be applied to post-constitutional laws as well. Additionally, the court considered whether Part III of the constitution was merely a check or limitation on the legislative power of the parliament and the state legislative assembly.

It was also explained that if a law is found to be unconstitutional, and passed after January 25th, 1950, it is void from the beginning, and anything carried out under it is also void and illegal in India, similar to the doctrines applied in America. All appeals were dismissed, and one set of costs was awarded to the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The doctrine of eclipse came under scrutiny, and the court clarified that any post-constitutional law that infringes on fundamental rights is void ab initio and that the doctrine of eclipse does not apply. The motor vehicles act of 1939 did not provide any provisions for the nationalisation of transportation services, which differs from the State's amendments that implemented a scheme of nationalisation of road transport.

Therefore, the doctrine of eclipse is vital to prevent any pre-constitutional laws from infringing on present-day fundamental rights created by the constitution post-Independence era. The case of Deep Chand v/s State of Uttar Pradesh and Others highlights the difference between pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws.