Doctrine Of Severability PDF

Preview

Summary

Doctrine Of Severability...

Description

Doctrine Of Severability The Doctrine of Severability is also known as the Doctrine of separability. This doctrine was devised by the Supreme Court to resolve the problem of the validity of laws which are declared as unconstitutional. When a part of the law is declared as unconstitutional, then a question arises whether the whole of the law is to be declared void or the only that part of the law which is unconstitutional should be declared as void. The doctrine of severability is necessary to protect the validity of the act as a whole without which an entire act would become void due to the invalidity of one provision of the act. According to the doctrine of severability, a law is void “to the extent of the inconsistency or contravention” with the relevant fundamental right according to article 13 of the Indian Constitution. It mean that an act may not be void as a whole =, only a part of it may be void and if that part is severable f rom the rest which is valid, and then the rest may continue to stand and remain operative. The act will then be read as if the invalid portion was not there. If, however, it is not possible to separate the valid portion, then the whole of the statute will have to go.

Basis of the Doctrine: Article 13 is the basis of the doctrine of severability. It makes the following provision in this regard: 1. Article 13(1) deal with the pre-constitution laws and declare that all such laws are void to the extent to which they are inconsistent with the fundamental right. 2. Article 13(2) deals with the post constitution laws and prohibits the state form making a law which takes away or abridges the fundamental rights and any such law is a void to the extent of the contravention. 3. Article 13(3) C// R.M.D.C Vs U O I, 1957 AIR SC 628 case The validity of the section 2(d) of the prize competitions Act (1955), which included competition of gambling as well as those involving skill, was challenged. According to article 19(1)(g) Freedom of Profession, the parliament can restrict prize competitions only of a gambling nature but not those involving skill. The court struck down those provisions related to competitions involving skill. The court held that where the provisions of the act so mixed together i.e. the invalid portion and the valid portion such that it would not possible to separate them, then the act as a whole would be deemed to be void. During the case Supreme Court laid down following rules regarding the question of severability. 1. The intention of the legislature is the determining factor in determining whether the valid parts of the statute are severable from the invalid parts. 2. The valid and invalid portion are so inextricably mixed up that they cannot be separated from another, then the invalidity of the portion must result in the invalidity of the Act in its entirety. 3. If the valid and invalid portions are so distinct and separate that after striking out what is invalid what remains is itself a complete code independent of the rest, then it will be upheld notwithstanding that the rest had become unenforceable. 4. Even when the provisions which are valid, are distinct and separate from those which are invalid if they form part of a single scheme which is intended to be operative as a whole, then also the invalidity of the part will result in the failure if the whole. 5. Likewise when the valid and invalid parts of a statute are independent and do not form part of a scheme but what is left after omitting the invalid portion is so thin and truncated as to be in substance different from what it was when emerged out of legislature, then also it will be rejected in its entirety. 6. The severability of the valid and invalid provisions of a statute does not depend on whether provisions are enacted in the same section or different section, 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 provisions therein. 7. If after the invalid portion is expunged from the statute what remains cannot ne enforced without making alterations and modifications therein, then the whole of it must be struck down as void as otherwise, it will amount to judicial legislation. 8. In determining the legislative intent on the question of severability, it will be legitimate to take into account the history of legislation, its objects, the title and preamble or it. C// A.K.Gopalan Vs State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 Case The Supreme court held that in case of repugnancy to the Constitution, only the repugnant provision of the impugned Act will be void and not the whole of it, and every attempt should be made to save as much as possible of the act. If the omission of the invalid part will not change the nature or the structure of the object of the legislature, it is severable. Where section 14 of Prevention detention act, was found out to be in violation of article 14 of the constitution. It was held by the Apex Court that it is section 14 of the act which is to be struck down not the act as a whole. It was also held that the omission of section 14 of the act will not change the objective of the act and hence it is servable. C// D.S. Nakara Vs U O I AIR 1983 SC 130 Case : Where the Act remained valid, while the invalid portion of it was declared invalid because it was severable from the rest of the Act. C// Sate of Bombay Vs F.N Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318 Case : It was held that the provision (eight sections) of the Bombay Prohibition Act 1949 which were declared void did not affect the validity of the entire Act and therefore there was no necessity for declaring the entire statute as invalid....