Multiple choice

Assertion (A): The Doctrine of Eclipse provides for the validation of Pre-Constitution Laws that violate fundamental rights upon the premise that such laws are not null and void ab initio, but become unenforceable only to the extent of such inconsistency with the fundamental rights Reason (R): The Doctrine of Eclipse is applicable to pre-existing laws only.

  1. Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).

  2. Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).

  3. (A) is true, but (R) is false.

  4. (A) is false, but (R) is true.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation
  1. Article 13 provides that any law which was made before the commencement of the constitution must be consistent with Part III of the constitution. If any statue is inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the constitution, such statue shall become void. It is held to be applied to only the pre-constitutional laws and not to be post constitutional laws. Both statements are individually true and R explains A correctly.
    1. R is the correct explanation of A. Thus, it is an invalid option.
    2. Doctrine of Eclipse deals with pre-constitutional law Article 13(1). Thus, R is true.
    3. Pre-existing law at the same time, such statue shall not be treated as dead unless it is abolished by the Parliament. It will be treated as dormant or remain eclipsed to the extent it comes under the shadow of the fundamental rights.

Keep practicing — related questions