Explanation:

The Doctrine of Eclipse states that any law which is inconsistent with fundamental rights is not invalid. It is not totally dead but overshadowed by the fundamental right. The inconsistency (conflict) can be removed by constitutional amendment. The amendment to the relevant fundamental right will remove the eclipse and the entire law becomes valid.

• Doctrine of eclipse is contended in Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution. Article 13 states that any law which was made before the commencement of the constitution must be consistent with the part III of the Indian Constitution. If any statue which is inconsistence with the provisions provided under part III of the Indian constitution such statue shall become void. At the same time such statue shall not be treated as dead but will be in the moribund condition until and unless it is abolished by the Parliament.
• Thus, any law prior to independence if it infringes or is in conflict with the Fundamental rights then it should be void up to that inconsistency. It doesn’t make the whole law void but that part of law which is inconsistent with Part-III of the Indian constitution will be void. The law is not dead but will be in moribund condition and is at disposal of parliament.

Hence option 1st is correct.