Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P. (1955)

Quick Summary

This case explains Article 13 and the Doctrine of Eclipse. A pre-Constitution law that clashes with Fundamental Rights is not totally dead; it is inactive against citizens. If the Constitution changes and removes the clash, the law can work again.

• State control and even monopoly in road transport can be valid after the First Amendment.
• Judicial review covers old laws; courts test them against Part III.

Issues

1. Is the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 constitutionally valid?
2. Does it violate Article 19(1)(g) (business/trade right)?
3. Does it violate Article 31 (property, as then in force)?
4. Does Article 13 allow review of pre-existing laws?
5. Can “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(6) include prohibition and state monopoly?
6. Do the First & Fourth Constitutional Amendments operate on such laws?

Rules

• Doctrine of Eclipse: Inconsistent pre-Constitution law is eclipsed (inoperative) against citizens, not void for all purposes.
• Article 13: Courts can test old laws against Part III and limit them to the extent of inconsistency.
• Article 19(6) after 1st Amendment: State monopoly can be a valid restriction.

Arguments

The Supreme Court focused on Article 13. A pre-Constitution law that clashes with Part III is not void for all purposes. It is only void to the extent of inconsistency against citizens. The law still works for past acts and can apply to non-citizens.

After the First Constitutional Amendment (1951), state monopoly became a valid restriction under Article 19(6). Thus, the transport law, once eclipsed, stood revived because the constitutional defect was cured. The impugned amendment was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

Doctrine of Eclipse: Inconsistent pre-Constitution law is inoperative against citizens but not wiped out. If a later constitutional change removes the inconsistency, the law becomes effective again.

Why It Matters

• Gives a clear method to handle pre-Constitution laws under Part III.
• Shows how amendments can revive an eclipsed law.
• Explains scope of Art. 19(6) and state monopoly.

Key Takeaways

• Eclipse ≠ Erasure: Law sleeps; it does not die.
• Amendment Heals: Cure the defect → law revives.
• Monopoly Valid (Post-1951): Can be a reasonable restriction.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: E-A-R — Eclipse, Amendment, Revival

1. Eclipse: Pre-Constitution law becomes inoperative vs citizens.
2. Amendment: Article 19(6) widens “reasonable restrictions.”
3. Revival: Defect cured → law works again.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Is the C.P. & Berar Amendment valid, or does it violate Articles 13, 19(1)(g), and 31?

Rule: Article 13 limits old laws to the extent of inconsistency; post-1951 Article 19(6) allows state monopoly.

Application: The law was eclipsed initially but revived after the Amendment; restrictions became reasonable.

Conclusion: The amendment and state transport scheme are constitutionally valid.

Glossary

Doctrine of Eclipse

A conflicting law is shadowed, not destroyed; it can revive if the conflict ends.

Reasonable Restriction

A lawful limit on rights to protect public interest, including state monopoly post-1951.

Writ under Art. 32

Direct approach to the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights.

FAQs

Related Cases