Doctrine of Severability
1. Introduction
The Doctrine of Severability is a fundamental principle in Indian constitutional law that ensures only unconstitutional portions of a law are struck down, while the rest of the law remains valid. This doctrine is crucial in maintaining the balance between judicial review and legislative intent.
📌 Definition:
✔️ The Doctrine of Severability states that if a part of a law is unconstitutional, the valid portions can be separated and will continue to remain in force, provided they are independent and workable.
📌 Constitutional Basis:
✔️ Article 13(1) & (2) of the Indian Constitution states that laws inconsistent with or violating fundamental rights shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency.
💡 Example:
If a law has 10 sections, and only 2 sections violate the Constitution, those 2 sections can be removed, while the remaining 8 sections will still be valid.
2. Explanation
The Doctrine of Severability is applied based on the following principles:
1. Only Unconstitutional Portions are Removed
✔️ If a specific provision violates fundamental rights, only that provision is struck down, not the entire law.
2. The Remaining Law Must Be Functional
✔️ If the rest of the law can still operate effectively after removing the unconstitutional part, it remains valid.
✔️ If the remaining law loses its purpose, the whole law may be invalidated.
3. Legislative Intent Matters
✔️ Courts check whether the legislature intended the law to function even without the unconstitutional part.
✔️ If the law’s purpose is defeated by removing the invalid section, the entire law is struck down.
💡 Example:
In State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951), certain provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act were unconstitutional, but the rest of the Act was upheld.
3. Significance in Real Life
✔️ Protects Fundamental Rights: Prevents unconstitutional laws from being fully enforced.
✔️ Ensures Legislative Stability: Instead of invalidating entire laws, only the unconstitutional parts are removed.
✔️ Balances Judiciary and Legislature: Courts do not overstep into law-making but ensure laws comply with the Constitution.
📌 Example:
✔️ In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), parts of the 42nd Amendment Act were struck down because they violated the basic structure of the Constitution, but the rest of the amendment remained valid.
4. Case Example
📌 Case: R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India (1957)
✔️ The Supreme Court ruled that the unconstitutional portion of the Prize Competitions Act could be removed while keeping the rest of the Act intact.
✔️ This case firmly established the Doctrine of Severability in India.
📌 Case: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
✔️ The Supreme Court struck down portions of the Aadhaar Act that violated privacy rights but upheld the remaining provisions.
5. Conclusion
✔️ The Doctrine of Severability prevents entire laws from being invalidated just because some parts are unconstitutional.
✔️ Only the unconstitutional sections are removed, and the rest of the law continues to operate.
✔️ Courts apply this doctrine to maintain legislative intent while ensuring constitutional compliance.
✔️ Landmark cases like Minerva Mills and R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla reaffirm the importance of this doctrine.
Thus, this doctrine preserves legal stability and ensures that unconstitutional provisions do not render an entire law void unless absolutely necessary.
Comments
Post a Comment