The Supreme Court clarified that the Doctrine of Severability is applicable in Suits for Specific Performance, but only in exceptional cases.

About Doctrine of Severability

The Doctrine of Severability (also known as the Doctrine of Separability) is a legal principle that allows courts to invalidate only the unconstitutional or illegal parts of a law or contract, while permitting the remaining valid portions to remain in effect and be enforced. The core idea is to preserve as much of the original law or agreement as possible without violating fundamental constitutional principles or the original intent of the creators. 

Key Principles

• Partial, Not Total, Invalidation: Only the portion that violates the law or constitution is struck down, not the entire document.
• Separability of Provisions: The valid part must be functionally and physically separate from the invalid part. If the removal of the offending part makes the rest of the law meaningless or inoperable, then the entire law will be declared void.
• Legislative or Party Intent: Courts assess the original intent of the legislature (for laws) or the parties (for contracts). If the valid portions can still achieve the primary purpose of the original document after severance, the doctrine applies. If the invalid part was essential to the main object, the whole is struck down.
• Constitutional Compliance: The primary goal is to ensure that all enforced provisions comply with the constitution and protect fundamental rights.
• Burden of Proof: The person challenging the constitutionality of a law typically bears the burden of proving which specific parts are invalid and that those parts are not severable from the rest of the statute. 

Application in the Indian Constitution
In India, the Doctrine of Severability is intrinsically linked to Article 13 of the Constitution. Article 13 states that any law inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights shall be void to the extent of that inconsistency. This phrase provides the textual basis for the judiciary to apply the doctrine and strike down only the offending provisions. 

Landmark cases have shaped its application in India: 

• A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950): The Supreme Court held that the challenged Section 14 of the Preventive Detention Act was violative of Article 14 but was severable from the rest of the Act, which remained valid.
• R.M.D.C. v. Union of India (1957): The Court laid down key rules for applying the doctrine, emphasizing that the legislative intent is the determining factor and that the whole act is void if the valid and invalid parts are inseparable.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): The Court declared certain sections of the 42nd Amendment Act unconstitutional as they violated the basic structure of the Constitution, but the rest of the Act was upheld.
• Navtej Johar v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court applied the doctrine to decriminalize consensual same-sex relations by declaring certain provisions of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code unconstitutional, while the remaining parts of the section continued to be valid.

Download Pdf