Q. Consider the following pairs:
Judicial doctrine Meaning in Indian context
1. Doctrine of Pith and Substance It helps in examining the true nature of a legislation and deciding which list it belongs to.
2. Doctrine of Due process of Law Checks if there is a law to deprive the life and personal liberty of a person and also see if the law made is fair, just and not arbitrary
3. Doctrine of Severability In case of inconsistency to the Constitution, only the disputed provision of the statute will be void and not the whole of it
4. Doctrine of Eclipse Any law that violates fundamental rights is not null or void ab initio, but is only nonenforceable.
How many pairs given above are correctly matched?
Exp) Option d is the correct answer
Pair 1 is correctly matched: The Doctrine of Pith and Substance helps in examining the true nature of a legislation and deciding which list it belongs to, central or state. The doctrine is employed in such cases to resolve the inconsistency between laws made by the Centre and the State Legislature. The doctrine was first acknowledged in the Canadian Constitution and In India, it came to be adopted in the pre-independence period, under the Government of India Act, 1935.
Pair 2 is correctly matched: The Doctrine of Due process of law, not only checks if there is a law to deprive the life and personal liberty of a person but also see if the law made is fair, just and not arbitrary.
Pair 3 is correctly matched: According to the doctrine of severability, the whole law/act would not be held invalid, but only the provisions which are not in consistency with the Fundamental rights. This doctrine is also known as the doctrine of separability and protects the Fundamental Rights of the citizens. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), the SC used this doctrine.
Pair 4 is correctly matched: The doctrine of eclipse states that any law that violates fundamental rights is not null or void ab initio, but is only non-enforceable, i.e., it is not dead but inactive. It was first introduced in India in Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955). The Supreme Court held that the impugned law became, for the time being, eclipsed by the fundamental right.
