Meaning
The Doctrine of Severability means that if a particular provision of a statute is unconstitutional, but the rest of the statute can stand independently, then only the offending (invalid) portion is struck down, and the valid part continues to operate.
In short: Only the unconstitutional part is severed (“cut off”) from the rest.
Constitutional Basis
- Derived from Article 13(1) & 13(2) of the Indian Constitution, which declare that laws inconsistent with fundamental rights are void to the extent of the inconsistency.
- The phrase “to the extent of such inconsistency” gives birth to this doctrine.
Essence of the Doctrine
If a law violates Fundamental Rights:
- The offending portion is declared void (invalid).
- The remaining valid portion continues to operate if it can function independently.
Leading Case Laws
| Case | Facts / Issue | Principle Laid Down |
| R.M.D.C. v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628 | Challenge to a law regulating prize competitions. | The Court held that only unconstitutional parts of the Act should be struck down, not the whole statute. |
| State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318 | Bombay Prohibition Act violated Fundamental Rights partially. | Court struck down unconstitutional provisions but upheld the rest — laid the foundation for severability in India. |
| A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27 | Preventive Detention Act was partly unconstitutional. | Invalid provisions were severed; rest of the Act remained valid. |
| Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, (1992) Supp (2) SCC 651 | Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) challenged. | Only paragraph 7 (bar on judicial review) was struck down; rest of the Schedule upheld — application of severability. |
| Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625 | Certain amendments to Constitution challenged. | Only the unconstitutional portion of the 42nd Amendment was struck down. |
Tests for Applying Doctrine of Severability
| Test / Condition | Explanation |
| 1️. Legislative intent | Did the legislature intend the valid part to stand without the invalid part? |
| 2️. Independent operation | Can the valid part operate independently and still achieve the legislative purpose? |
| 3️. Same scheme maintained | If removal of the invalid part destroys the scheme or object of law → whole law is invalid. |
| 4️. No rewriting by court | Courts cannot rewrite the law; they can only sever the invalid portion. |
Example
Suppose a law says:
“No person shall publish a newspaper or criticize the government.”
- The first part (“no person shall publish a newspaper”) violates Article 19(1)(a).
- The second part (“criticize the government”) may be valid.
The court will strike down only the first part and retain the second if it can stand independently.
Key Takeaway
The Doctrine of Severability ensures that the entire law is not invalidated merely because a part of it violates Fundamental Rights — preserving legislative intent while protecting constitutional supremacy.
DoctrineofSeverability
Add a Comment