14.7 Doctrine of Eclipse

The doctrine: a pre-existing law inconsistent with a later-arriving constitutional guarantee is not dead but eclipsed — shadowed by the superior provision to the extent of the inconsistency, and revivable if the shadow lifts (the guarantee is amended or the inconsistency otherwise removed). The classical illustration is the Indian line from Bhikaji Narain Dhakras (a law void under the Indian Constitution's rights guarantee, enacted before the Constitution, held eclipsed rather than dead — reviving when the offensive bar was removed). The two-sided rule: for laws enacted after the constitutional prohibition, the weight of authority treats them as void from enactment (the prohibition operates prospectively against them); the eclipse metaphor belongs to pre-constitutional or earlier-enacted laws — the inconsistency shadows them without killing them. The Nepali contrast (state it explicitly): the 2015 Constitution's own machinery is express — under Article 133(1) the Court may declare a law void ab initio or from the date of the decision, as justice requires; and Article 1 voids inconsistent law "to that extent." So Nepal's text builds the eclipse idea's effect (partial, temporally flexible invalidation) into the voidness jurisdiction itself — the doctrine's substance without the metaphor's controversy. Cite Article 133(1)'s two options as the Nepali answer to the eclipse problem. Exam Focus Long questions: "Explain the doctrines of constitutional interpretation applied by the Supreme…