HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA

2022-2023

ASSIGNMENT OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

TOPIC: A Comprehensive Analysis of Doctrine of Severability

Submitted by – Palak Singh Submitted to – Dr. Arun Klair

B.B.A.LL.B (Hons.), (Teaching Associate)

9TH Semester

Roll No. - 1120181958

 DECLARATION

This is to certify, that the project submitted by me is an outcome of my independent and original work.
I have duly acknowledged all the sources from which the ideas and extracts have been taken. The
project has not been submitted elsewhere for publication.

TOPIC: A Comprehensive Analysis of Doctrine of Severability

Author:
Palak Singh
Designation: Student, B.B.A. LL.B (HONS.), 9th Semester, 5th Year
E-mail: palakbba1858@hpnlu.ac.in

HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

GHANDAL, SHIMLA, P.O. SHAKRAH, SUB-TEHSIL DHAMI
DISTRICT SHIMLA, HIMACHAL PRADESH-171014
Ph. 0177-2779802, 0177-2779803, Fax: 0177-2779802
Website: http://hpnlu.ac.in
PROBLEM PROFILE
The present paper delves into the “A Comprehensive Analysis of Doctrine of Severability”. The
paper is a scholarly study to comprehend the statutory provisions and precedents guiding the
‘doctrine of severability’..

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The technique to the research is only Doctrinal Research. The nature of the studies is critical,
exploratory, and yet explanatory study. The major part of the research was done via help from
virtual assets like SCC Online, Westlaw, Hein online and Lexis Nexis, etc. Various cases had
been studied for the purpose of the research.

OBJECTIVES
The paper delves into a general overview of the ‘Doctrine of Severability’.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 What is Doctrine of Severability?
 Table of Contents
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................... 2
PROBLEM PROFILE .......................................................................................................................... 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 3
OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................................... 3
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................... 3
BASIS OF DOCTRINE ......................................................................................................................... 5
PRACTICE OF DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY ............................................................................ 7
WHETHER ONE COULD CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW .................. 8
BURDEN OF PROOF ........................................................................................................................... 9
EFFECTS WHEN A LAW IS DECLARED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ....................................... 10
EFFECTS ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE DUE TO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
.............................................................................................................................................................. 11
POWER OF A LEGISLATURE WHEN A STATUTE IS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL . 11
WHETHER A RIGHT COULD BE WAIVED .................................................................................. 12
EFFECT OF ACQUIESCENCE ........................................................................................................ 13
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................... 13
BASIS OF DOCTRINE
This doctrine of severability is also known as the doctrine of separability. The word “to the extent
of the inconsistency or contravention” makes it clear that when some of the provision of a statue
when some of the provisions of a statute becomes unconstitutional on account of inconsistency
with fundamental rights, only to the repugnant provision of the law in question shall be treated by
the courts as void, and not the whole statute.

The doctrine of severability means that when some particular provision of a statute offends or is
against a constitutional limitation, but that provision is severable from the rest of the statute, only
that offending provision will be declared void by the Court and not the entire statute.

The doctrine of severability says that if good and bad provisions are joined together by using the
word ‘and’ or ‘or’ and the enforcement of good provision is not made dependent on the
enforcement of the bad one that is the good provision can be enforced even if the bad one cannot
or had not existed, the two provisions are severable and the good one will be upheld as valid and
given effect to. On the other hand, if there is one provision which is capable of being used for a
legal purpose as well as for illegal one, it is invalid and cannot be allowed to be used even for the
legal purpose.

In this doctrine it is not the whole act which is held invalid for being inconsistent with the Part
three of the constitution which is given to the citizens of India. It is only those parts are inconsistent
which are violative of the fundamental rights. But just the part which violates the fundamental
rights is separable from that which does not isolate them. If it there that the valid portion is
combined with the invalid portion that it is impossible to separate them. Then in such cases the
court will leave it and declare the whole Act as void. This process of doing it is known as the
doctrine of severability.

The honorable Supreme Court of India has used this doctrine in the case of A.K Gopalan vs State
of Madras it was held by the court that the preventive detention should be removed from section
14 then it would be valid and by removing this will not affect the act and it will remain valid and
effective. The doctrine was further was also applied in D.S Nakara vs Union of India where it was
that the act remained valid and the portion which was not consistent was declared as invalid and
this was because it was easily separated from the valid part. Also, State of Bombay vs F.N Balsara
and here it was held that the provision of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 where the entire act
was declared as void and it did not affect the rest of the part and there was no need to declare the
whole statute as void.

The doctrine of severability was even used in the case of Minerva Mills vs Union of India where
section 4 of 55 of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 was struck down for being beyond the amending
power of the Parliament and then it had declared the rest of the Act as valid. Then in another case
of Kihoto Hollohan Vs Zachillhu which is very famously known as the defection case. In this case
the paragraph 7 of the Tenth Schedule which was first inserted by the 52nd Amendment Act of
1985 was declared as unconstitutional because it had violated the provisions under Article 368(2).
But the whole part was not declared unconstitutional. So, the rest of the Tenth Schedule excluding
paragraph 7 was upheld by the Constitution.

The doctrine of severability was considered by the supreme court of India in the case of R.M.D.C
vs Union of India1 and the rule regarding severability was laid down in this case-

The intention of the legislature behind this is the determine whether the invalid portion of the
statute can be severed from the valid part or not. And if it happens that the both the valid and
invalid parts can’t be separated from each other than the invalidity of the portion of the statute will
result in invalidity of the whole act.

Even if it happens that the invalid portion is separate from the valid portion. It is the power and
duty of the courts to declare law which is inconsistent with the constitution of India to be
unconstitutional. The foundation of this power of judicial review as it was explained by a nine-
judge bench is the theory that the constitution which is the fundamental law of the land, is the will
of the people, while the statute is only the creation of the elected representatives of the people,
when therefore the will of the legislature as declared in a statute, stands in opposition to that of the
people as declared in the Constitution, the will of the people must prevail.

Also, the power to annul the acts of the executive and the judiciary which violates the constitution
is given by the Constitution itself in the judiciary. But the same is not part of the legislature which
is the creature of the constitution or one can say a law-making body. It is not correct to say that

1
AIR 1957 SC 628
view of the legislators must prevail because they are answerable to the people. In determining the
constitutionality of a provision, the court will first question that whether the law is constitutional
or not because there will be a possibility that it might be contravening a lot of articles that is
enshrined in the constitution.

PRACTICE OF DOCTRINE OF SEVERABILITY

The practice of Doctrine of Severability has been in practice for a very long time and it is not a
new thing. It has been adopted in many countries like United Kingdom, Australia, United States
of America, Malaysia and so as well in our country which is India. In England, United Kingdom
the doctrine of severability goes back when it had originated in the case of Nordenfelt v. Maxim
Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company Ltd.2 In this case Then in other countries like the
United States of America where the first case of doctrine of severability was decided in the year
1876. After this a question evolved which question that if the Congress knew about the invalid
portion had it enacted it the first time. In this particular case the case was centered around the
fifteenth amendment of the American constitution that spoke about the voting rights not being
denied to the American male citizen on the basis of color or race etc.

Then in the very popular case of Champlin Refining Co. v. Corp. Commission of Oklahoma 3 where
an oil refining company had challenged several provisions of the Oklahoma statute which further
argued the various provisions that had violated the Commerce Clause and even the fourteenth
amendment that talks about the due process and equal protection clauses. And in determining
whether any of these or any one of them could be struck down and further separated from the
residue of the oil and gas statute at issue. In the year 2006 the Supreme Court of the United States
of America propounded the three principles as an underlying rationale. Then in the case of Ayotte
vs. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng.4, here also the court had laid down the three principles of
severability.

In another case which is Cardegna. Vs Buckeye Check Cashing that was in the year 2006 where
the defendant which was the Buckeye took a loan amount from a subsidiary that was a business.
Later on, again he took another loan amount which was higher than the loan amount which was

2
1894 AC 535
3
286 US 210 1932 (1932)
4
546 U.S. 320 (2006)
previously taken and then he was later unable to pay back. He then filed a class action suit with
the help of a lawyer. The suit was regarding that the interest rates charged by the plaintiff were
higher when compared with others that was charged by the company that was at least 45 percent
higher than the prescribed normal rates. But, the court in Florida stated that it is not only one part
of the contract that could be challenged but it needs to be the whole contract. And so, this means
that the doctrine of severability which earlier was thought could be applied cannot be applied now.
Further the honorable Supreme Court of gave the decision and declared that the whole of the
contract was void ab initio on the grounds that such void contracts that are absolutely void and
useless from the initial stage itself.

The doctrine of severability has now it just been part of the western world but also has spread to
the eastern countries of the world. Like from India to Malaysia and in Malaysia this doctrine was
evolved in the very popular case which is Malaysian Bar & Anr. V. Government of Malaysia.
When we talk about India with respect to the doctrine of severability then we need to study and
understand how Article 13 of the Indian Constitution came into being. This doctrine works when
it becomes evident that any part of the law offends the Constitution. When we talk about in context
of Indian Constitution then it will be the fundamental rights which is guaranteed by the
Constitution. So, this doctrine will work especially when subjected to this part which is Part III of
the Indian Constitution.

WHETHER ONE COULD CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF

A LAW
One can challenge the constitutionality of law but only if our rights are directly affected by a law.
Then only we can question the constitutionality of the law. It follows in such ways-

When a person is outside the class that might be injured by the statute then he has no right to
complain. Then where a statute affects bona vacantia, then there is no person who is competent to
challenge the validity of such statute. Again, where the statute operates as a contract, either party
to the contract is entitled to challenge the validity of the statute.

Presumption Taken by The Courts

It is always on the person who attacks and tries to show that it is contravening the constitution then
it is him on whom the burden is upon to show that courts that while performing its duties it has the
constitutional principles by and its guidelines while laying down its decisions as it said in the case
of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury vs The Union Of India And Others5. If it happens that the challenge
is not on the provisions of the Constitution then the courts have to consider and make sure that it
is intra vires and try to interpret the same. So, it is clear that the burden fully lies upon the person
who questions the decision and challenges it in a court of law.

If something happens and the constitutionality of the act is challenged then the person must show
that he has sustained some injury as a result of that or that he/she is in immediate danger of
sustaining some direct injury as a result of the statute or law coming into force. And if it even
abridges the fundamental rights of the person in any form then the aggrieved person has all the
powers to approach the courts without waiting or delaying for the State to take some or any type
of action. And if it happens that the person does not possess any of the fundamental rights then
he/she cannot challenge the validity of the law on the grounds that it is inconsistent with a
fundamental right. Even a corporation has a legal entity separate from that of its shareholders.
Hence, in the case of corporations, whether the corporation itself or the shareholders would be
entitled to impeach the validity of the statute and this will depend upon the question whether the
right of the corporation or of shareholders have been affected by the statute that has been
impugned.

When it happens that the fundamental rights of the company are impugned by the statute then it
also affects the interest of the concerned shareholders then in such cases the shareholders also
impugn the constitutionality of the statute. In such situations what happens is that the joinder of
the company as co-petitioner would not bar relief to the shareholders even though the company is
not a ‘citizen’ and so would not be entitled to relief. Also, the possibility of financial relief due to
the management of the company being taken over by the government is sufficient to give locus
standi to a shareholder.

BURDEN OF PROOF
If the particular decision of the Court contravenes with the fundamental rights of the Constitution,
then the burden of proof falls upon the person who questions and challenges decisions of the Court.
In the case titled Chiranjit Lal Chowdhary Vs Union of India & Ors, 6, held that if the

5
AIR 1951 SC 41
6
AIR 1951 SC 41
constitutionality of the Act is challenged in any circumstances, the Complainant must prove that
some injury was sustained by him as a result of the statute or law coming into force

EFFECTS WHEN A LAW IS DECLARED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Article 141 of the Constitution of India says that the honorable Supreme Court of India is binding
on all the courts which is within the territory of India. For example, once if any law or any statute
is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India then it shall be from that date onwards
will be binding on all lower courts in India. The effect of this is that the decision operates as a
judgement in rem against all the persons who may or is going to seek relief in any court in India.
So, in further proceedings then there is no onus on the party to affected to establish its
unconstitutionality again and then the court is bound to reject the law which is declared as invalid
by the honorable Supreme Court.

The same thing is applied when the law has been declared to be unconstitutional partially. If the
law is sought to be enforced in a case, then in such cases no notice is to be taken by the Court of
that part which has been declared by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. In other words, it
means that the Court will read the Statute in such a manner that the part of the section which has
been declared as invalid as never existed before. If it happens that the person is prosecuted for the
contravention of the section which has been declared as invalid then no onus is cast upon the
accused to prove that his/her case falls upon and under that part of the section which has been held
invalid. On the other hand, it happens that the prosecution cannot succeed unless it is proven that
the accused has contravened that part of the section which is enforceable and valid after the
honorable Supreme Court decision.

No distinction is made where a case where the law is declared to be invalid because of the lack of
legislative competence and a case where it is declared invalid on the ground of contravention of a
fundamental right. Even Article 245(1) of the Constitution of India lays down very specifically
that the legislative power whether it is of Union or of a State Legislature is and will always remain
subject to other provisions of the Constitution. The result is that when a legislature makes any law
which is contravening a provision of the Constitution like say any of the fundamental rights then
the position will remain the same as if they had no power to legislate over the subject-matter of
the legislation at all. Then, accordingly, the declaration of invalidity of the law by the honorable
Supreme Court goes through the legislative power in either of the cases as held many cases by the
court itself.

EFFECTS ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE DUE TO

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Earlier back in the days there were a lot of confusion upon this topic when there is a constitutional
amendment and because of this there is some effects on the unconstitutional statute. The ‘doctrine
of eclipse’ can be invoked in the case of pre-constitution law which was valid when it had been
enacted. But there was some inconsistency with the constitution which came into existence
subsequently, if and when the shadow is removed, the pre-constitution law becomes free from all
kinds of infirmity.

But the thing is that the principle cannot be invoked in the case of a post Constitution law which
is void ab initio. In view of Article 13(2), the fundamental rights constitute express limitations
upon the legislative power of a legislature making a law after the commencement of the
Constitution and no distinction can be drawn between a post-Constitution law which is ultra-vires
that is beyond the legislative competence of the legislature and a law which contravenes a
fundamental right. It is that a post-Constitutional law which violates a fundamental right is void
ab initio and no subsequent amendment of the Constitution can revive such still-born law, unless
such amendment is retrospective.

POWER OF A LEGISLATURE WHEN A STATUTE IS DECLARED

UNCONSTITUTIONAL
When a statute is declared unconstitutional by a Court of law then the Legislature cannot directly
override that decision which is taken and further pronounce the statute to have been valid on the
date of judgement. It is, however, so that the competence of the Legislature to a new law which is
further free from the unconstitutionality and then provide that anything done under the offending
law shall be deemed to have been under the new law and subject to its provisions.

Effects of a Proclamation of Emergency upon the Unconstitutional Statute

A Proclamation of Emergency which is made under Article 352 is prospective in its operation.
Article 358 in the Indian Constitution which frees the Legislature from the limitation which is laid
down in Article 19 during the proclamation of emergency means during its continuance. But it
does not operate to validate a law which is enacted prior to the Proclamation which was invalid
owing to the contravention of Article 13(2). Then such laws will be void ab initio and cannot be
revived by the proclamation of the emergency. So, now if any executive action which is taken in
the exercise of any power in the hands by such a void law will also be invalid. Even though such
action takes place after the commencement of the Proclamation or a continuation of pre-
Constitution executive action.

WHETHER A RIGHT COULD BE WAIVED

The important question which has been there over the years was that whether a fundamental right
could be waived which has been answered by the Constitution Bench of the honorable Supreme
Court. Like for example in the case of Behram vs State of Bombay where the honourable
Venkatarama J.had expressed the view that such of the rights as are for and in the interest of the
individuals and is totally different from the interest of the general public, could be waived
accordingly even the right which is guaranteed by Article 19(1) which also comes under this
category.

But everyone else didn’t have the same viewpoint which is the majority that included Mahajan,
C.J., Mukherjee, Bose and Hasan, JJ. And they expressed the viewpoint even without deciding the
question which was mainly for the good of the individuals. This has also been laid into our
Constitution on grounds of public policy and in pursuance of the objective declared in the Preamble
itself. So, in the end the conclusion is that none of the fundamental rights could be waived.

Then again in the case of the Basheshar v. Commr. Of I.T., Justice Bhagwati and Subba Rao, JJ.
have held that a fundamental right being in the nature of a prohibition addressed to the State, none
of the fundamental rights in our Constitution can be waived by an individual and this declaration
was given with what the majority have viewed in the Behram’s Case.

In the very famous case of Olga Tellis vs Bombay Corpn. where the Constitution bench has
unanimously held that there cannot be any estoppel against the Constitution which is the supreme
law of the land. Also, a person cannot waive any of the fundamental rights conferred upon him by
the Constitution itself which is stated in Part III. In many of the cases there have been situations
where the courts without even entering into the question of waiver, the Court has held that a person
who has applied for an appointment to an office by an Act is not prevented from challenging on
the ground that it violates his or her fundamental right which is guaranteed under Article 16.
EFFECT OF ACQUIESCENCE
There have been cases over the years where it has been held that if a person has gained any kind
of benefits under statute, then he/she cannot challenge its constitutionality or its validity in any
case. Like in the case of Nain Sukh v. State of U.P. where the Supreme Court has observed that a
person who had been allowed to contest an election which is being conducted on the basis of
separate electorates which is formed on the communal lines then he/she cannot seek remedy under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India after they are done with the election.

CONCLUSION
The term Severability Clause has been defied under Black's Law Dictionary to mean a provision
that keeps the remaining provisions of a contract or statute in force, if any portion of that contract
or statute is judicially declared void, unenforceable, or unconstitutional or to mean a Judicial
standard for deciding whether to invalidate the whole contract or only the offending words. Under
this standard, only the offending words are invalidated if it would be possible to delete them simply
by running the blue-pencil through them, as opposed to changing, adding or re-arranging words.

The Severability Clause finds its basis from the Blue-Pencil, or Blue-Pencil Test, which means to
delete the invalid (unenforceable) words of a part of statute to keep the other parts of such
provisions validated, and thus, enforceable. Resultantly, the valid part of a provision is enforced
without the need to invalidate the complete provision solely owing to a certain invalid part. The
term Blue-Pencil popularly means to censor or to make cuts such as manuscript, film or other
words.