The rule that a pre-Constitution law inconsistent with a Fundamental Right is not dead but only "eclipsed" or rendered dormant; it remains on the statute book and revives in full if the relevant Fundamental Right is later amended to remove the inconsistency.
- Based on Article 13(1), which makes pre-Constitution laws void only "to the extent of inconsistency" with Part III.
- Such a law is overshadowed by the Fundamental Right, inoperative against citizens, but valid against non-citizens and for past transactions.
- Laid down in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955), where a 1947 law eclipsed by Article 19(1)(g) revived after the First Amendment, 1951, widened the permitted restrictions.
- Applies primarily to pre-Constitution (existing) laws under Article 13(1); for post-Constitution laws that violate Fundamental Rights the position is stricter (void from inception under Article 13(2)), though later rulings have extended a limited eclipse to post-Constitution laws affecting non-citizens.
It is a frequently tested Article 13 doctrine, usually paired with severability and the idea that an unconstitutional law can be revived by amendment.
Eclipse (the law is dormant and revivable) is not the same as the law being struck off the statute book; the inconsistency only suspends its operation.
Bhikaji Narain (1955): a pre-Constitution law clashing with a Fundamental Right is eclipsed, not dead, and revives if the right is later amended.