Article 13 — Judicial Review, Severability & Eclipse — KSLU Notes

Law, Article 13 & Judicial Review

What actually happens to a law that clashes with your Fundamental Rights? It does not vanish in a puff of smoke — the answer is more subtle, and it has spawned three famous “doctrines” that examiners adore: eclipse, severability and waiver. Article 13 is the switch that makes all three possible, and it is also the article that quietly gives Indian courts their most powerful tool — judicial review.

The article that polices all other laws

Article 13 makes Fundamental Rights supreme over ordinary law. It works in two directions:

Article 13(1) — past laws. All laws in force before the Constitution that are inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of the inconsistency. (Note: void only so far as they clash — not wiped out entirely.)
Article 13(2) — future laws. The State shall not make any law that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights; any such law is void to the extent of the contravention.

Article 13(3) defines “law” very widely — it includes any ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, and even custom or usage having the force of law. So even a government notification or an old custom can be struck down if it violates a right.

Because Art 13 lets courts declare laws void for violating the Constitution, it is the textual home of judicial review — the power of the higher judiciary to test laws against the Constitution (reinforced by Arts 32 and 226, and held to be part of the basic structure).

The three doctrines

Doctrine of Eclipse. A pre-constitutional law that conflicts with a Fundamental Right is not dead — it is overshadowed (eclipsed) by the right and lies dormant. If the right is later amended or removed, the shadow lifts and the law revives and operates again. Picture a solar eclipse: the sun (the law) is still there, merely blocked; remove the moon (the right) and it shines again (Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v State of MP, 1955).
Doctrine of Severability (Separability). If part of a statute is unconstitutional, the court strikes down only that part, provided it can be separated from the valid portion; the rest of the Act survives. If the good and bad are so entangled that they cannot be separated, the whole law falls (R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v Union of India, 1957).
Doctrine of Waiver. A citizen cannot waive (give up) a Fundamental Right, even voluntarily. These rights are matters of public policy placed in the Constitution for the benefit of society, not private favours a person can bargain away (Basheshar Nath v CIT, 1959).

💡 EXAM TIP — pre- vs post-constitutional laws

The trap. Applying “eclipse” to every void law.

What to write. Eclipse is chiefly for pre-constitutional laws — they are dormant and revivable. A post-constitutional law that violates a Fundamental Right is void from its birth (stillborn) under Art 13(2) and is not revived by a later amendment.

Why it scores. It shows you can pair the right doctrine with the right kind of law — exactly the distinction the 6-mark note is testing.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — can a person waive a Fundamental Right?

Facts. To get a benefit, a citizen signs an undertaking “agreeing” not to claim the protection of Article 14.

Rule. Fundamental Rights cannot be waived; they are founded on public policy (Basheshar Nath).

Apply. The citizen’s consent does not make the rights-violating action valid; the State cannot rely on the “waiver”.

Conclusion. The waiver is ineffective; the citizen may still enforce Article 14.

Article 13(2), Constitution of India: “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.”

In Simple Terms: no organ of the State may pass a law that cuts down your Fundamental Rights — and if it does, that law is void to the extent it clashes.

flowchart TD
    A13["Article 13 — laws vs Fundamental Rights"]
    A13 --> PRE["13(1): pre-Constitution laws"]
    A13 --> POST["13(2): post-Constitution laws"]
    PRE --> EC["Inconsistent -> ECLIPSED (dormant, revivable)"]
    POST --> VD["Inconsistent -> VOID from birth"]
    A13 --> SEV["Severability: strike only the bad part"]
    A13 --> WV["Waiver: rights CANNOT be waived"]

Case Laws

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v State of MP (1955) — Doctrine of Eclipse; a pre-constitutional law is dormant, not dead, and revives if the right is removed.
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v Union of India (1957) — Doctrine of Severability; strike down only the offending, separable part.
Basheshar Nath v CIT (1959) — Fundamental Rights cannot be waived.
[C-1 · C-5] Kesavananda Bharati (1973) / Minerva Mills (1980) — judicial review is part of the basic structure.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All CL-I topics