Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Explained
clearias.com/indian-judicial-doctrines/
October 5, 2017
A doctrine is a belief, principle or position – usually upheld by authorities like courts. As far as Indian
Judiciary is concerned, there are many doctrines. Many of you may be familiar with the Doctrine of
Basic Structure. In this article, we will be dealing all important Indian Judicial Doctrines.
The claim of any particular feature of the Constitution to be a “basic” feature is determined by the
Court on a case-by-case basis.
This doctrine was first expressed in Kesavananda Bharati v. The State of Kerala (1973). Thanks to
Kesavananda Bharati, Palkhivala and the seven judges who were in the majority, India continues to be
the world’s largest democracy.
Doctrine of Eclipse
The doctrine states that if any law becomes contradictory to the fundamental rights, then it
does not permanently die but becomes inactive.
As soon as that fundamental right is omitted from the Constitution, the inactive law becomes
revived.
When a court strikes a part of the law, it becomes unenforceable. Hence, an ‘eclipse’ is said to
be cast on it. The law just becomes invalid but continues to exist.
The eclipse is removed when another (probably a higher level court) makes the law valid again
or an amendment is brought to it by way of legislation.
Supreme Court first applied this doctrine in the case of Bhikaji vs State of Madhya Pradesh
where it applied to pre-constitutional law. The extension to the post-constitutional law was
stated in the case of Dulare Lodh vs ADJ Kanpur.
Doctrine of Severability
According to this doctrine, if there is any offending part in a statute, then, only the offending
part is declared void and not the entire statute.
Article 13 states that the portion that is invalid should be struck off and not the entire one. The
valid part can be kept.
However, it should be kept in mind that even after separation; the remaining part should not
become ambiguous.
If the remaining part becomes ambiguous, then the whole statute would be declared void and
of no use.
Supreme Court in the case of RMDC vs. UOI states that doctrine of severability is a matter of
substance and not of form.
Doctrine of Laches
Laches means delay. The doctrine of laches is based on the maxim that “equity aids the
vigilant and not those who slumber on their rights.” (Black’s Law Dictionary).
The outcome is that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in
asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party.
Elements of laches include knowledge of a claim, unreasonable delay, neglect, which taken
together hurt the opponent.
It is well known that one who wants remedy must come before the court within a reasonable
time.
Lapse of time violates equity and it is against the concept of justice.
Hence the issue came up whether delay can be a ground to deny fundamental rights under
Article 32.
It was said that denial of fundamental rights only on the ground of delay is not justified as
fundamental rights are basic and very essential for the development of the individual.
Supreme Court under the case of Ravindra Jain vs UOI stated that remedy under article 32 can
be denied on grounds of unreasonable delay. However, there has been no case to overrule the
above-mentioned case law by the Supreme Court order.
Also read: National Population Register (NPR) - How is it different from the National Register of
Citizens (NRC)?