Doctrine of Severability: Key Cases Explained
In this article we will explain Each and very term related to Doctrine of Severability and its key cases so lets start :-
Articles 13(1) and 13(2) provide that the law is void only ‘to the extent of inconsistency or contravention’ with the fundamental rights. It means that the whole law is not void under Article 13 but only that portion of law is void which contravenes fundamental rights. Rest of the law may continue to stand and remain operative.
Doctrine of severability means that if the offending provision can be separated from what is constitutional then only the part of the law which is in the contravention will be declared void. Whole law need not be struck down. The phrase ‘to the extent of inconsistency’ and ‘to the extent of contravention’ clearly indicates that the intention of the framers of the Constitution was to strike down only that portion of the law which is ultra vires to the Constitution.
There is, however, one exception to this. If the valid portion of law is so closely mixed with the invalid portion that if the invalid portion is struck down the rest of the statute will be meaningless or will not be able to stand on its leg, then in such a situation the whole of the statute will be declared void.
Key Cases on Doctrine of Severability
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras 1950
In the case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124, the Supreme Court held that where the law authorizes restrictions on fundamental rights which is wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits provided by the Constitution and it is not possible to separate the two, then the whole law is to be struck down.
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara (1951)
The Court clarified that under Article 13, a law is void only to the extent that it violates fundamental rights. If the unconstitutional provision can be separated from the valid part, then only the offending portion is struck down, and the rest of the law remains in force.
R.M.D.C. v. Union of India, AIR 1957
The Supreme Court has explained the doctrine of severability in the case of R.M.D.C. v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628, as follows:
•The intention of the legislature is determining factor in determining whether the valid parts of a statue are separable from invalid parts. The test is whether the Legislature would have enacted the valid parts had it known that the rest of the statue was invalid.
•If the valid and invalid provisions are so inextricably mixed up that they cannot be separated from one another, then the invalidity of a portion must result in the invalidity of the Act in its entirety.
•If they are so distinct and separate that after striking out what is invalid, what survives can stand independently and is workable, the portion which remains is in itself a complete code independent of the rest, then it will be upheld notwithstanding that the rest had become unenforceable.
•Even when the valid provisions are distinct and separate from the invalid provisions, but if they all form part of a single scheme which is intended to operate as a whole, then the invalidity of a part will result in the failure of the whole.
•The severability of the valid and invalid provisions of a statue does not depend on whether the provisions are enacted in the same section or different sections, it is not the form, but the substance of the matter that is material, and that has to be ascertained on an examination of the Act as a whole and of the setting of the relevant provision therein.
Superintendent v. Ram Manohar Lohia 1960
In the case of Superintendent v. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 633, the Supreme Court held that if the good and bad provisions are joined together and the enforcement of the bad one i.e., the good provisions can be enforced even if the bad one cannot be, the two provisions are severable and the good one will be upheld as valid.
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, the Supreme Court struck down Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as violative of the fundamental right under Article 22. The rest of the Act was held to be valid. The doctrine of severability has been applied by the Supreme Court in case of challenge to the validity of a constitutional amendment.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. UOI AIR 1980 SC 1789
In the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. UOI, AIR 1980 SC 1789, the court struck down certain sections of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, as beyond the amending power of the Parliament. The rest of the Act was held to be constitutionally valid.
Kihota Hollohan v. Zachithu AIR 1993 SC 412
In the case of Kihota Hollohan v. Zachithu, AIR 1993 SC 412, it was held that a composite amendment (containing amendments in provisions requiring ratification by States as well as provisions not requiring such ratification) is covered by the rule of severability. It was held that Section 10 of the Tenth Schedule minus para 7 remains valid and constitutional. Para 7 which has been declared unconstitutional is severable from the main provision of Tenth Schedule. The remaining provisions of the Schedule stands independent of Para 7 and are complete in themselves and workable Para 7 provided that the speaker’s decision regarding the disqualification shall be final and no court could examine its validity.
Doctrine of severability is applicable to legislation which is partly ultra vires that is beyond the legislative competence of the legislature. This is contemplated by Article 254. It is applicable to an Act which is generally within the legislative competence of a legislature but certain parts are outside the scope of legislative entry.
Conclusion –
This Doctrine ensures that only unconstitutional provisions are struck down, preserving the rest of the law whenever possible. This principle upholds legislative intent while maintaining constitutional integrity.
This doctrine Notes will help both UPSC and Judiciary Aspirants.
If you want to know more about different Doctrine then click on given link .
If you want to know more about us then click on given link.
We are also available on facebook so if you have any query please click on given link
