Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1959)
AIR 1959 SC 149 — No waiver of Fundamental Rights; Section 8A settlement and Article 14 explained.
This case says a person cannot give up (waive) Fundamental Rights. The dispute started from a tax settlement under Section 8A of the Investigation Commission Act, 1947. That settlement came from proceedings that relied on Section 5(1), which had already been held unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, sitting as a Constitution Bench, made it clear: Fundamental Rights protect the public at large and are not private benefits that a person can sign away.
- Is a settlement under Section 8A valid when the base provision (Section 5(1)) is unconstitutional?
- Can a person waive Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
- Waiver: Giving up a right by choice. Here, the Court ruled that Fundamental Rights cannot be waived.
- Unconstitutional foundation: If the root legal step is unconstitutional, actions built on it are open to challenge.
- The settlement under Section 8A sits on Section 5(1); since 5(1) is unconstitutional, the settlement cannot stand.
- Fundamental Rights protect the public; they cannot be given up by private agreement.
- The assessee settled; having accepted benefits, he should be bound by it.
- Even if Section 5(1) was defective, the settlement was voluntary and should be enforced.
The Supreme Court held that Fundamental Rights cannot be waived. A person cannot agree to give up constitutional protections. Where the base legal step is unconstitutional, a settlement built on it cannot be pressed merely on the ground of consent. The Court delivered multiple opinions but agreed on the core principle that Fundamental Rights are not waivable.
- Fundamental Rights are enacted in public interest and cannot be waived.
- A proceeding founded on an unconstitutional provision cannot be cured by private settlement.
- Article 14’s equality mandate does not depend on individual consent.
This ruling protects citizens from pressure or ignorance leading them to give up core rights. It keeps the State within constitutional limits and prevents unequal bargains from eroding public safeguards.
- No waiver of Fundamental Rights.
- Consent cannot validate an unconstitutional base.
- Article 14 is a non-negotiable restraint on the State.
- Multiple opinions; common core principle.
- Settlements tied to void provisions are suspect.
Mnemonic: “RIGHTS ≠ RENT-OUT”
- Rights protect the public, not private deals.
- No waiver: you can’t switch off the Constitution.
- Faulty base? The structure falls.
| I | Issues |
|---|---|
| I | Validity of a Section 8A settlement built on Section 5(1); possibility of waiving Fundamental Rights. |
| R | Rules |
|---|---|
| R | Fundamental Rights cannot be waived; unconstitutional foundations cannot sustain later steps. |
| A | Application |
|---|---|
| A | Since Section 5(1) was unconstitutional, the settlement was insecure. Consent did not cure the defect. |
| C | Conclusion |
|---|---|
| C | Fundamental Rights remain in force; the settlement could not be enforced on waiver grounds. |
- Waiver
- Voluntary giving up of a right. Not allowed for Fundamental Rights.
- Article 14
- Equality before law; bars arbitrary State action.
- Section 8A Settlement
- A negotiated tax settlement under the Investigation Commission Act, 1947.
- Unconstitutional Foundation
- A legal base already struck down; actions resting on it are doubtful.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now