(i) When the court declares certain provisions of the Act as invalid and affects the validity of that Act, this principle is known as Doctrine of Severability.
(ii) It is the perspective character of Article 13(1) which gives rise to the Doctrine of Eclipse.
(iii) The American doctrine of waiver of Fundamental Rights is part of the Indian Constitution.
(iv) The doctrine of perspective overruling was not applied in I.C. Golaknath vs State of Punjab.
Choose the correct answer from the code given below :
Analyzing Correct Constitutional Statements
We need to evaluate each statement regarding Indian constitutional principles:
-
Statement (i): Doctrine of Severability
This statement defines the Doctrine of Severability, which allows courts to strike down specific invalid provisions of an Act while upholding the rest if they can stand independently. However, the precise phrasing might be considered insufficient or inaccurate in the context of the question's intended distinctions, leading to its exclusion as a correct statement.
-
Statement (ii): Doctrine of Eclipse and Article 13(1)
Article 13(1) addresses laws enacted before the commencement of the Constitution. The Doctrine of Eclipse explains that such laws, if inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, are rendered legally ineffective or 'eclipsed' but not nullified. They can become operational again if the constitutional inconsistency is rectified. This statement correctly links the perspective character of Article 13(1) to the Doctrine of Eclipse.
-
Statement (iii): Waiver of Fundamental Rights
The Indian Constitution and Supreme Court rulings clarify that Fundamental Rights are essential safeguards and cannot be waived by individuals. This contrasts with certain interpretations in American law. Therefore, this statement is incorrect.
-
Statement (iv): Doctrine of Prospective Overruling
The doctrine of prospective overruling, allowing judicial decisions to apply only to future cases, was explicitly applied by the Supreme Court for the first time in the landmark I.C. Golaknath vs. State of Punjab case. Hence, this statement is factually incorrect.
Conclusion on Correct Statements
Based on the detailed analysis, only statement (ii) accurately reflects a principle of Indian Constitutional Law.
Important Questions from Constitution Law
- Which criteria are used in legislations for treating juveniles differently from young adults?
(a) Physical development
(b) Economic development
(c) Intellectual development
(d) Socio emotional development
Select the most suitable option : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason(R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The writ of Habeas Corpus can be granted to enable the detainee to argue his case in person.
Reason (R) : Because R Vs. Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Wynne (1992) decided so.
Codes : - Which of the following are matched incorrectly ?
i. Habeas Corpus – ‘To produce the body’
ii. Quo warranto – ‘Issued to a lower court to stop proceedings in a case’.
iii. Prohibition – ‘Issued to a lower court quashing a decision or order’
iv. Mandamus – ‘Commands a person to perform a public duty’. - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) to answer using codes given below :
Assertion (A) : One of the two Acts enacted under List I Entry 66 and the other under List III Entry 25 can be repugnant to each other.
Reason (R) : Because in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary of Inf. and Tourism Department decided so.
Codes : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The power under 368 of the Constitution is a constituent power subject to the constitutional scheme as to distribution of legislative power according to entries in the Seventh Schedule.
Reason (R) : Because Sasanka Sekhar Maity Vs. Union of India decided so.
Codes :
