Free Topic-Wise General Studies MCQs
This quiz explores Article 13(1) and the Bhikaji Narain case. Master the concept of how pre-constitutional laws become dormant when violating fundamental rights and their potential revival through constitutional amendments.
Your Total Marks
Syncing Benchmark...
Want to redo this specific test later?
REF ID (Save this!):
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as the Deep Chand case established that pre-constitutional laws are merely eclipsed by fundamental rights and can be revived, whereas post-constitutional laws are void ab initio. Statement 3 is correct because Article 13(2) prohibits the state from making laws that abridge fundamental rights, rendering such laws null and void from their inception, thus precluding the application of the Doctrine of Eclipse. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse was first articulated in the 1955 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. case, not the 1952 Shankari Prasad case, which primarily dealt with the validity of constitutional amendments under Article 368.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws (Article 13(1)), while post-constitutional laws (Article 13(2)) are void ab initio from their inception. Statement 2 is incorrect as the doctrine is a judicial innovation based on Article 13 of the Indian Constitution, not an adoption of Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Kesavananda Bharati case established the Basic Structure doctrine, and the suspension of Fundamental Rights during an emergency is governed by Articles 358 and 359, not the Doctrine of Eclipse.
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct because Article 13(1) explicitly mandates that all pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void to the extent of such inconsistency. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse generally applies to pre-constitutional laws, and the Ambica Mills case actually clarified that post-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights are void ab initio and cannot be 'eclipsed.' Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 13(4), introduced by the 24th Amendment Act of 1971 (not the 42nd), states that nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment of the Constitution made under Article 368, and the Doctrine of Eclipse remains primarily restricted to pre-constitutional laws.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct because the Doctrine of Eclipse, established in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955), applies to pre-constitutional laws that become inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, rendering them 'eclipsed' rather than dead. Statement 3 is correct because post-constitutional laws violating Article 13(2) are void ab initio, meaning they are stillborn and cannot be revived by the doctrine. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 13(2) prohibits the state from making laws that abridge Fundamental Rights, and the Supreme Court has consistently held that the Doctrine of Eclipse does not apply to post-constitutional laws.
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is correct because the 1955 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras case established that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are merely 'eclipsed' by the shadow of the Constitution, remaining dormant rather than void ab initio. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Golaknath case (1967) actually limited Parliament's power to amend Fundamental Rights, and the Doctrine of Eclipse generally does not apply to post-constitutional laws. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws under Article 13(1), whereas post-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights are considered void ab initio under Article 13(2) and cannot be revived.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. All three statements are incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse is a judicial innovation, not a codified provision, and it applies exclusively to pre-constitutional laws (Article 13(1)), not post-constitutional ones (Article 13(2)). Statement 1 is false as the doctrine was evolved by the Supreme Court in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955), not the Constituent Assembly or the 42nd Amendment. Statement 2 is false because the court held that pre-constitutional laws are not 'void ab initio' but merely 'eclipsed' by Fundamental Rights, meaning they remain valid for transactions before the Constitution and can be revived if the constitutional bar is removed. Statement 3 is false because Article 13(2) deals with post-constitutional laws, which are void ab initio and cannot be revived by this doctrine.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as the Doctrine of Eclipse was formally articulated in the 1955 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras case, which held that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not dead but merely eclipsed. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Severability applies to both pre and post-constitutional laws, whereas the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws. Statement 3 is incorrect because, under Article 13(2), post-constitutional laws that violate Fundamental Rights are 'void ab initio' (void from inception) and cannot be revived by the Doctrine of Eclipse.
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct because the 1955 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras case established that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are not nullified but merely eclipsed, becoming operative again if the inconsistency is removed. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Deep Chand (1959) judgment explicitly held that the Doctrine of Eclipse does not apply to post-constitutional laws, which are 'stillborn' and void ab initio under Article 13(2). Statement 3 is incorrect because, while judicial review is a basic structure, Article 13(2) specifically prohibits the state from making laws that take away fundamental rights, whereas the basic structure doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati) serves as a limitation on the Parliament's constituent power under Article 368.
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional (pre-1950) laws under Article 13(1), whereas post-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void ab initio under Article 13(2) and cannot be revived. Statement 2 is correct as the doctrine posits that an inconsistent pre-constitutional law is not dead but merely 'eclipsed' by the shadow of fundamental rights, remaining dormant. Statement 3 is correct because if a constitutional amendment removes the inconsistency (as seen in the 1st Amendment regarding Article 31), the eclipsed law becomes operative again without the need for re-enactment.
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct because the Doctrine of Eclipse, established in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955), applies only to pre-constitutional laws that become inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, whereas post-constitutional laws violating the Basic Structure are void ab initio. Statement 1 is incorrect as the Doctrine of Eclipse is a judicial interpretation of Article 13, not a product of the 42nd Amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because the I.R. Coelho judgment (2007) ruled that laws in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review and cannot be shielded from the Basic Structure doctrine, meaning they are not 'eclipsed' but potentially unconstitutional if they violate fundamental rights.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959) established that the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, whereas post-constitutional laws violating these rights are void ab initio. Statement 3 is correct because Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955) dealt with the C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1948, which was revived after the First Amendment removed the shadow cast by Article 19(1)(g). Statement 2 is incorrect because the Golak Nath case (1967) dealt with the power of Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, not the Doctrine of Eclipse, and it did not invalidate those specific amendments on grounds of legislative incompetence.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Doctrine of Eclipse, derived from Article 13(1), applies to pre-constitutional laws that become inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, rendering them 'eclipsed' or unenforceable rather than void ab initio, and they revive if the constitutional hurdle is removed via amendment. Statement 1 is false because the doctrine applies to Fundamental Rights (Part III), not the Ninth Schedule. Statement 2 is false as the revival occurs through constitutional amendments, not executive orders under Article 359. Statement 3 is false because the doctrine does not apply to 'basic structure' violations, which render laws void ab initio, and it only affects the inconsistent portion of a law, not the entire statute.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. All three statements are correct because Article 13(1) renders pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights 'void' only to the extent of such inconsistency, meaning they remain valid for past transactions and become 'eclipsed' rather than dead. The landmark Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955) case solidified this by clarifying that such laws are merely dormant and can be revived if the constitutional barrier is removed via an amendment. Consequently, the Doctrine of Eclipse acts as a bridge, ensuring that pre-existing laws are not entirely obliterated but remain in a state of suspension until they are brought into harmony with Part III.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the judiciary maintains that Article 368 cannot revive laws that were void ab initio, as affirmed in Ambika Prasad Mishra (1980). Statement 2 is correct because the Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955) ruling established that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are merely 'eclipsed' and become enforceable upon the removal of the constitutional inconsistency. Statement 3 is correct because the Deep Chand (1959) judgment clarified that while pre-constitutional laws are eclipsed, post-constitutional laws violating Article 13(2) are void ab initio and cannot be revived by the Doctrine of Eclipse.
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct because in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay (1951), the Supreme Court held that Article 13(1) is prospective and does not invalidate pre-constitutional laws for past acts, as fundamental rights are not retrospective. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse, established in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955), applies to pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights, whereas R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla deals with the Doctrine of Severability regarding post-constitutional laws. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse is a judicial creation derived from Article 13 and was never formally incorporated into the Constitution by the 24th Amendment Act of 1971.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because in State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills (1974), the Supreme Court held that post-constitutional laws violating fundamental rights are void ab initio and cannot be revived by subsequent constitutional amendments. Statement 2 is incorrect as the court explicitly maintained the distinction, ruling that post-constitutional laws are void from their inception, unlike pre-constitutional laws which are merely eclipsed. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse is derived from Article 13(1) regarding pre-constitutional laws, and Article 368 provides no authority to revive void post-constitutional legislation.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because in Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959), the Supreme Court held that the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws, while post-constitutional laws violating fundamental rights are void ab initio. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while Golak Nath (1967) held that constitutional amendments could be challenged under Article 13, it did not expand the Doctrine of Eclipse to revive invalidated laws. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse is a judicial creation derived from Article 13, not a codified provision of the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because Article 13(2) applies only to post-constitutional laws, while the Doctrine of Eclipse primarily concerns pre-constitutional laws under Article 13(1). Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 13(4), inserted by the 24th Amendment, explicitly states that Article 13 does not apply to any amendment made under Article 368, effectively excluding such amendments from the Doctrine of Eclipse. Statement 3 is incorrect because, per the Ambica Mills case, post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights are void ab initio (null and void from inception) rather than merely unenforceable, distinguishing them from pre-constitutional laws that are only eclipsed.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights (Article 13(1)), rendering them unenforceable but not void, whereas post-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights are void ab initio under Article 13(2) and cannot be revived, making statements 1 and 2 incorrect. Statement 3 is false because Article 13(2) prohibits the state from making laws that abridge Fundamental Rights, and the 1951 Shankari Prasad case dealt with the amendment power under Article 368, not the revival of statutes via the Doctrine of Eclipse.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct because Article 13(1) renders pre-constitutional laws void only to the extent of their inconsistency with Fundamental Rights, remaining valid for non-citizens or non-fundamental rights matters. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955) held that such laws are not dead but 'eclipsed' by Fundamental Rights, becoming enforceable again if the constitutional restriction is removed. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse is unrelated to the Shankari Prasad case (1951), which dealt with the power of Parliament to amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. The Doctrine of Eclipse, established in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955), states that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not dead but merely 'eclipsed' by the shadow of the Constitution, becoming enforceable again if the relevant constitutional restriction is removed. Statement 1 is false because the doctrine applies to pre-constitutional laws, not post-constitutional ones, and A.K. Gopalan dealt with the validity of the Preventive Detention Act, not the revival of void laws. Statement 2 is false as the doctrine does not apply to constitutional amendments, which are governed by the Basic Structure doctrine, and Statement 3 is false because the doctrine is rooted in Article 13(1) regarding Fundamental Rights, not the Seventh Schedule.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955) case established that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Part III are not nullified but merely eclipsed by Fundamental Rights. Statement 2 is correct because the Deep Chand (1959) judgment clarified that post-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights are void ab initio (dead from inception) and cannot be revived by the Doctrine of Eclipse. Statement 3 is correct because once the constitutional limitation is removed via an amendment, the 'shadow' is lifted, automatically restoring the law's validity without requiring fresh legislative action.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as Article 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Part III are void only to the extent of such inconsistency, forming the basis for the Doctrine of Eclipse. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Keshavan Madhava Menon (1951) ruled that Article 13(1) is prospective, meaning it does not invalidate past transactions or pending proceedings. Statement 3 is correct because the Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955) case clarified that such laws are merely 'eclipsed' or rendered dormant by Fundamental Rights, and they become enforceable again if the constitutional restriction is subsequently removed by an amendment.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws that become inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, not to administrative notifications or post-constitutional laws. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Supreme Court held in Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) that post-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights are 'void ab initio' and cannot be revived by the Doctrine of Eclipse. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Mahendra Lal Jaini case (1963) explicitly distinguished between pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws, affirming that the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to the former, while the latter remain void from their inception.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 1 and 3 are correct because the Doctrine of Eclipse, notably established in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955) by a bench led by Justice S.R. Das, posits that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not dead but merely 'eclipsed,' becoming enforceable again if the constitutional shadow is removed via amendment. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 13(4) was actually inserted by the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1971, to exclude constitutional amendments from the definition of 'law' under Article 13, and it does not provide for the automatic revival of laws struck down by High Courts.
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct as Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955) established that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not nullified but merely rendered inoperative (eclipsed). Statement 3 is correct because Deep Chand (1959) distinguished that Article 13(1) applies to pre-constitutional laws, whereas post-constitutional laws under Article 13(2) are void ab initio and cannot be revived by the doctrine. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in Ambica Mills (1974) held that the Doctrine of Eclipse is generally inapplicable to laws that are void ab initio, and specifically clarified that the protection of Fundamental Rights is primarily for citizens, limiting the scope of such challenges by non-citizens.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Bhikaji case established that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Part III are merely 'eclipsed' and become enforceable if the inconsistency is removed by constitutional amendment. Statement 2 is correct because the landmark 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment established that Parliament's constituent power under Article 368 cannot alter the 'basic structure' of the Constitution. Statement 3 is correct because, unlike pre-constitutional laws, post-constitutional laws violating fundamental rights are void ab initio under Article 13(2), a principle solidified in the 1959 Deep Chand case.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as Article 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Part III are void to the extent of such inconsistency, forming the basis for the Doctrine of Eclipse. Statement 2 is correct because the Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955) case established that such laws are not wiped out but remain dormant or 'eclipsed' by Fundamental Rights, becoming enforceable again if the constitutional restriction is removed. Statement 3 is correct as the Keshavan Madhava Menon (1951) ruling affirmed that Article 13(1) is prospective in nature and does not invalidate actions or proceedings concluded prior to the Constitution's commencement.
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is correct because the Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955) case established that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are not void ab initio but remain 'eclipsed' and dormant, becoming enforceable once the inconsistency is removed by a constitutional amendment. Statement 1 is incorrect as the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws, whereas post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights are void ab initio (stillborn) under Article 13(2) and cannot be revived. Statement 2 is incorrect because the doctrine was first articulated in the Bhikaji Narain Dhakras case, not in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950).
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct because the 24th Amendment Act, 1971, added Article 13(4) to explicitly exclude constitutional amendments under Article 368 from the purview of judicial review under Article 13. Statement 2 is incorrect as the Doctrine of Eclipse is a judicial creation originating from the Bhikaji Narain Dhakras case (1955), not a codified provision of the 1st Amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws that become inconsistent with fundamental rights, whereas post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights are considered void ab initio under the Doctrine of Severability or the Doctrine of Voidness.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in Keshavan Madhava Menon (1951) established that while pre-constitutional laws are not void ab initio, post-constitutional laws violating Part III are void from their inception. Statement 2 is correct because the Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959) case explicitly clarified that the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws, not post-constitutional ones. Statement 3 is correct as Article 13(2) mandates that any law made by the State in contravention of Fundamental Rights is void to the extent of such contravention, effectively barring the application of the Doctrine of Eclipse to post-constitutional legislation.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws (Article 13(1)) which become dormant but not dead, whereas post-constitutional laws (Article 13(2)) are void ab initio. Statement 2 is correct because post-constitutional laws violating Part III are considered 'stillborn' and cannot be revived by the Doctrine of Eclipse, as Article 13(2) explicitly prohibits the state from making such laws. Statement 3 is correct because the Supreme Court in Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of U.P. (1963, often cited as 1967 in specific contexts regarding the finality of the ruling) clarified that laws enacted after January 26, 1950, that contravene Fundamental Rights are nullities from their inception, thereby confirming the distinction between pre-constitutional and post-constitutional invalidity.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court ruled that the law, though inconsistent with Article 19 for citizens, remained valid for non-citizens, thereby applying the Doctrine of Eclipse. Statement 3 is correct as the First Amendment (1951) added Article 19(6)(ii), enabling the state to carry on any trade or business to the exclusion of citizens. Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 13(2) was part of the original Constitution, not introduced by the 1951 Amendment, and it prohibits the state from making laws that abridge fundamental rights rather than empowering the revival of struck-down laws.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 and 2 are correct because Article 13(1) renders pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights 'void' only to the extent of such inconsistency, meaning they remain dormant (eclipsed) and can be revived if the constitutional barrier is removed, as established in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955). Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Prospective Overruling was indeed introduced in the Golaknath case (1967), but it is a distinct judicial principle used to limit the retrospective effect of a judgment; it has no functional link to the Ninth Schedule, which relates to the validation of certain Acts and Regulations under Article 31B.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as Article 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights become void only to the extent of such inconsistency, allowing the Doctrine of Eclipse to apply. Statement 3 is correct because the 1955 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras case established that such laws are not wiped out but merely eclipsed by Fundamental Rights, becoming enforceable again if the constitutional restriction is removed. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse was not articulated in the 1950 A.K. Gopalan case; that judgment primarily dealt with the interpretation of 'procedure established by law' under Article 21.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 and 2 are correct because the Doctrine of Eclipse, established in the 1955 Bhikaji Narain Dhakras case, interprets Article 13(1) to mean that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are rendered inoperative but not void ab initio, remaining dormant until the inconsistency is removed. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse is a judicial creation derived from constitutional interpretation rather than a statutory provision, and it was never codified by the 24th Constitutional Amendment Act, which instead dealt with the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution.
Explanation: Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is correct because Justice S.R. Das, in the 1955 Bhikaji case, established that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with fundamental rights is not dead but merely 'eclipsed' and becomes operative again once the constitutional barrier is removed. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Court ruled that the law was not void ab initio but only unenforceable against citizens, while remaining valid against non-citizens. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse was formally established in the Bhikaji case itself, whereas the A.K. Gopalan case (1950) primarily dealt with the validity of the Preventive Detention Act under Article 21.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. All three statements are incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse is a judicial creation derived from Article 13, not a statutory provision added by the 42nd Amendment. The doctrine applies primarily to pre-constitutional laws (Bhikaji Narain Dhakras case), whereas post-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void ab initio and cannot be revived. Furthermore, the Behram Khurshed Pesikaka ruling clarified that such laws are not completely dead but merely unenforceable against citizens, allowing for potential revival if the constitutional shadow is removed, contradicting the claim that they are void ab initio.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. The Doctrine of Eclipse, established in Bhikaji Narain Dhirajbhai v. State of M.P. (1955), clarifies that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not void ab initio but remain 'eclipsed' and unenforceable against citizens. This landmark judgment specifically addressed the C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947, which was challenged for violating the right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g). Since all three statements accurately reflect the legal principles, historical context, and the specific facts of the case, they are entirely correct.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Doctrine of Eclipse holds that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not dead but merely eclipsed, becoming enforceable if the inconsistency is removed via amendment. Statement 2 is correct because the 1st Amendment (1951) introduced Article 31B and the Ninth Schedule to immunize specific laws from judicial review, effectively shielding them from being eclipsed by Fundamental Rights. Statement 3 is correct because in Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959), the Supreme Court clarified that while pre-constitutional laws are merely eclipsed, post-constitutional laws that violate Fundamental Rights are void ab initio (dead from inception) and cannot be revived by the doctrine.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court in Keshavan Madhava Menon (1951) established that post-constitutional laws violating fundamental rights are void ab initio and cannot be revived. Statement 2 is correct as Article 13(1) mandates that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Part III are void only to the extent of such inconsistency, creating the 'eclipse' space. Statement 3 is correct because the Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955) case held that such laws are not dead but merely unenforceable; once a constitutional amendment removes the inconsistency, the shadow is lifted and the law becomes fully operative again.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct because Article 13(2) mandates that any post-constitutional law violating Part III rights is void ab initio (void from inception) to the extent of the contravention. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws; post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights are 'stillborn' and cannot be revived by subsequent constitutional amendments. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse does not apply to post-constitutional laws, and the ADM Jabalpur case (1976) dealt with the suspension of enforcement of rights during an emergency, not the revival of void laws.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect as the Doctrine of Eclipse originated in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955), not A.K. Gopalan. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in Mahendra Lal Jaini v. State of U.P. (1963) explicitly held that the doctrine applies only to pre-constitutional laws (Article 13(1)) and not to post-constitutional laws, which are void ab initio under Article 13(2). Statement 3 is incorrect because Article 13(2) renders post-constitutional laws violating fundamental rights void from their inception, meaning they cannot be 'eclipsed' or revived, unlike pre-constitutional laws governed by Article 13(1).
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct because the Doctrine of Eclipse operates prospectively, rendering a law dormant rather than void ab initio, allowing it to become enforceable once the constitutional shadow is removed. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in Mahendra Lal Jaini (1963) held that post-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void ab initio under Article 13(2) and cannot be revived by subsequent amendments. Statement 3 is incorrect because the doctrine is a judicial interpretation of Article 13, not a mechanism for suspending judicial review, and no such notification requirement exists under the 24th Amendment.
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Severability is derived from Article 13 of the Constitution, not the 1935 Act, and it mandates that only the inconsistent portion of a law be struck down rather than the entire statute. Statement 2 is correct as the Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955) case established that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not void ab initio but merely 'eclipsed' and unenforceable. Statement 3 is correct because Article 13(1) applies to pre-constitutional laws, allowing them to be revived if the constitutional obstacle is removed, whereas post-constitutional laws (Article 13(2)) are void ab initio.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct because in Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959), the Supreme Court ruled that post-constitutional laws violating fundamental rights are void ab initio and cannot be revived by the Doctrine of Eclipse. Statement 2 is correct as pre-constitutional laws, under Article 13(1), are merely overshadowed by fundamental rights and automatically regain vitality if the inconsistency is removed by a constitutional amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws under Article 13(1) and has no connection to the Basic Structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
Explanation: Statement 2 is correct. Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 2 is correct because the Supreme Court in Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959) established that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are merely eclipsed (dormant) under Article 13(1), whereas post-constitutional laws under Article 13(2) are 'stillborn' or void ab initio. Statement 1 is incorrect as the concept of 'stillborn' laws is a judicial interpretation of Article 13, not a provision introduced by the 42nd Amendment. Statement 3 is incorrect because the I.R. Coelho (2007) judgment ruled that laws in the Ninth Schedule are subject to judicial review if they violate the basic structure, meaning they are not simply 'eclipsed' but potentially unconstitutional.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court in Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) established that the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws that become inconsistent with fundamental rights, not to post-constitutional laws which are void ab initio. Statement 2 is incorrect because Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay (1951) held that pre-constitutional laws are not void ab initio but merely become unenforceable to the extent of inconsistency, allowing the doctrine to 'eclipse' them. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Golaknath case (1967) did not extend the Doctrine of Eclipse to post-constitutional laws; rather, the Court consistently maintained that post-constitutional laws violating Article 13(2) are void from their inception.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct because in Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959), the Supreme Court held that post-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights are void ab initio and cannot be revived by the Doctrine of Eclipse, which applies only to pre-constitutional laws. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse pertains to the validity of statutes vis-Ã -vis Fundamental Rights, not the suspension of rights during a national emergency, which is governed by Articles 358 and 359. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse is a rule of interpretation regarding the enforceability of laws, not a mechanism to validate laws that violate the Basic Structure doctrine established in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct because the Doctrine of Eclipse, as established in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955), applies only to pre-constitutional laws that become 'shadowed' by Fundamental Rights but remain valid for pre-existing rights. Statement 2 is incorrect as Article 13(3)(b) does not exist, and post-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void ab initio under Article 13(2), not merely suspended. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Supreme Court in Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959) explicitly clarified that the Doctrine of Eclipse does not apply to post-constitutional laws, which are treated as void from their inception.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct because the Doctrine of Eclipse renders pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights 'dormant' rather than dead, allowing them to remain operative against non-citizens if the violated right is exclusively for citizens. Statement 2 is correct as the Supreme Court in Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959) held that the doctrine applies only to pre-constitutional laws, whereas post-constitutional laws violating Fundamental Rights are 'stillborn' and void ab initio. Statement 3 is correct because the Ambica Mills case (1974) clarified that a law violating Fundamental Rights available only to citizens is not void in its entirety, but remains valid and enforceable against non-citizens.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. All three statements are incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights (Article 13(1)), not post-constitutional laws or the Indian Independence Act. The Doctrine of Severability allows courts to strike down only the offending portion of a law while keeping the rest valid, and it does not require a legislative curative resolution. Finally, the Kesavananda Bharati case established the Basic Structure doctrine to limit the amending power of Parliament, but it does not equate the Doctrine of Eclipse with the Basic Structure or prevent all amendments to Fundamental Rights.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as the 1955 Bhikaji case established that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not nullified but remain in a dormant state, capable of revival if the constitutional barrier is removed. Statement 3 is correct because Article 13(1) specifically addresses pre-constitutional laws, rendering them unenforceable to the extent of their inconsistency with Part III. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse was not articulated in A.K. Gopalan (1950); rather, it was formally introduced in the Bhikaji case, and it generally applies to pre-constitutional laws rather than post-constitutional legislation, which is governed by the Doctrine of Severability under Article 13(2).
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is correct as the Doctrine of Severability, notably applied in A.K. Gopalan (1950), mandates that if the valid and invalid parts of a statute are distinct and independent, the court may strike down only the unconstitutional portion while upholding the rest. Statement 2 is correct because in Keshavan Madhava Menon (1951), the Supreme Court held that fundamental rights are prospective, meaning pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Part III are not void ab initio but merely eclipsed, rendering them unenforceable but not dead. Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies exclusively to pre-constitutional laws; post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights are void ab initio under Article 13(2) and cannot be 'eclipsed' or revived.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. All three statements are incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse, as established in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955), applies only to pre-constitutional laws that become inconsistent with Fundamental Rights, rendering them 'shadowed' rather than void. Statement 1 is false as the Basic Structure doctrine was only introduced in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), long after Shankari Prasad. Statement 2 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse generally does not apply to post-constitutional laws, which are void ab initio under Article 13(2) if they violate Fundamental Rights. Statement 3 is false because Article 13(2) explicitly prohibits the state from making laws that take away or abridge Fundamental Rights, and the Doctrine of Eclipse cannot be used to revive laws that were void from their inception.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) restricts the amending power of Parliament, while the Doctrine of Eclipse (Bhikaji v. State of M.P., 1955) renders pre-constitutional laws inoperative but not void when they conflict with Fundamental Rights. Statement 2 is correct because the I.R. Coelho judgment established that laws added to the Ninth Schedule after the Kesavananda Bharati verdict are open to judicial review if they violate the Basic Structure. Statement 3 is correct because the Doctrine of Eclipse specifically applies to pre-constitutional laws that are 'eclipsed' by Fundamental Rights, allowing them to become enforceable again if the constitutional restriction is removed.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. Statement 1 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse holds that pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are not void ab initio but merely become unenforceable or 'eclipsed' by the shadow of the Constitution. Statement 2 is incorrect because, while Article 13(3)(a) defines 'law', the Kesavananda Bharati case dealt with the Basic Structure doctrine rather than defining the scope of Article 13(3)(a). Statement 3 is incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies exclusively to pre-constitutional laws; post-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights are void ab initio under Article 13(2) and cannot be revived by subsequent constitutional amendments.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct because the Supreme Court in Deep Chand v. State of U.P. (1959) ruled that post-constitutional laws violating fundamental rights are void ab initio and cannot be revived by the Doctrine of Eclipse. Statement 2 is correct as the Court in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay (1951) established that fundamental rights are not retrospective, meaning they do not invalidate pre-constitutional acts committed before the Constitution's commencement. Statement 3 is correct because the Doctrine of Eclipse posits that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with fundamental rights is merely 'eclipsed' and becomes enforceable again if the constitutional impediment is removed via an amendment.
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect. Statement 2 is incorrect. Statement 3 is incorrect. All three statements are incorrect because the Doctrine of Eclipse applies to pre-constitutional laws (Bhikaji Narain Dhiras v. State of M.P., 1955) that become dormant, not post-constitutional ones, and it is distinct from the Doctrine of Severability which applies to both. The Doctrine of Eclipse was not established in the 1951 A.K. Gopalan case, and Article 13(2) actually prohibits the state from making laws that abridge Fundamental Rights, rendering post-constitutional laws void ab initio rather than merely eclipsed. Furthermore, the legislature cannot revive laws declared unconstitutional through this doctrine; it only allows pre-constitutional laws to regain enforceability if the constitutional impediment is removed by an amendment.
Explanation: Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is correct. Statement 3 is correct. Statement 1 is correct as the Supreme Court in Keshavan Madhava Menon (1951) held that Article 13(1) is prospective, meaning pre-constitutional laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights remain valid for past acts. Statement 2 is correct because the Doctrine of Eclipse, established in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (1955), posits that a law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is not dead but merely 'eclipsed' and becomes operative again if the constitutional restriction is removed. Statement 3 is correct because Article 13(2) renders post-constitutional laws violating Part III 'void ab initio' (dead from inception), meaning they cannot be revived by subsequent constitutional amendments, unlike pre-constitutional laws.