As we know all laws should be in conformity with the Part-III of the Indian Constitution and if found inconsistent with it will be declared unconstitutional and null & void by the Judiciary. There are a few important doctrines developed by the Judiciary which helps in identifying and treating the fate of such laws.
The doctrine of Waiver-
The question is whether a Citizen can waive his fundamental right? This issue arose in Bashesher Nath vs. Income Tax Commissioner (AIR 1959). The court held that the citizens cannot waive their fundamental rights given under part-III of the Indian Constitution. These rights are put within the constitution not merely for the advantage of the individual but as a matter of public policy for the advantage of the overall public. It is an obligation imposed upon the large majority of our people who are economically poor, educationally backward, and politically not yet conscious of their rights. In such circumstances, it's the duty of this court to guard their rights against themselves.
The doctrine of Severability-
When a part of the statute is declared unconstitutional by the court then a question arises whether the whole of the statute is to be declared void or only that part which is unconstitutional should be declared intrinsically. In A.K. Gopalan v. the State of Madras ( AIR 1950 SC 27) the Supreme Court of India declared Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act,1950 as ultra vires, observed: “The impugned Act minus this section can remain unaffected, it was observed that the provisions which have been declared as void do not affect the entire statute, therefore, there is no necessity for declaring the statute as invalid.”
The doctrine of Eclipse-
It is based upon the principle that a law that violates Fundamental Rights isn't nullity or void initially but becomes only unenforceable and remains during a morbid condition. It is over-shadowed by the elemental rights and remains dormant, but it's not dead. Such laws aren't exhausted entirely from the written record. They exist for all past transactions, for the enforcement of rights acquired and liabilities incurred before this Constitution came into force and for the determination of rights of persons who haven't been given fundamental rights by the Constitution, e.g., non-citizens. But the question of can such laws come into force again by constitutional amendment was solved in the case of Bhikaji Vs. State of M.P( AIR 1955 SC 781).In that case provision of the C.P and Berar Motor Vehicles ( Amendment ) Act, 1947 authorized the state government to make up the entire motor transport business within the province to the exclusion of motor transport operators. This provision, though valid when enacted, became void on the coming into force of the constitution in 1950 as it violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Subsequently, in 1951, clause (6) of Article 19 was amended. The effect was to remove the shadow and to make the impugned Act free from all blemish or infirmity. It became enforceable against citizens also as non-citizens after the constitutional impediment was removed. This law was merely eclipsed for the nonce by the elemental rights. As soon as the eclipse is removed the law begins to work from the date of such removal.
The doctrine of Lifting the Veil-
This doctrine is not that popular as compared to other doctrines but it is an important part of Constitutional Law. Whenever constitutional validity may come into question the judiciary lifts the veil of the statute and ascertain the purpose, intent of such statute, and whether the statute is deviating from its purpose.
Comments
Post a Comment