What was the main question in Deep Chand v. State of U.P.?

Whether the U.P. Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955 conflicted with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 under Article 254 and whether it violated Article 31.

What did the Court say about repugnancy under Article 254?

Repugnancy arises only when both Central and State laws cover the same field and directly clash. The U.P. Act could still operate to support its own schemes.

Does the doctrine of eclipse apply to post-Constitution laws?

No. Post-Constitution laws that breach fundamental rights are void from the start (void ab initio). The eclipse doctrine is not applicable.

Was Article 31 violated in this case?

No. The Court held the U.P. Act provided for compensation, so there was no breach of Article 31.

What is the quick takeaway from this case?

The U.P. Act largely stood. Repugnancy needs a clear conflict; post-Constitution rights breaches make a law void; compensation under Article 31 was adequate.

Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Quick Summary

CASE_TITLE: Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1959 SC 648)

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Article 254 repugnancy, Motor Vehicles Act 1939, UP Transport Act 1955

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Article 31 compensation, doctrine of eclipse, nationalisation of transport

PUBLISH_DATE: 24 Oct 2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India

Slug: deep-chand-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh

The Court held that the U.P. Act largely survived even after the 1956 amendment. Repugnancy needs a direct clash in the same field. Article 31 was not breached. The eclipse doctrine does not cover post-Constitution laws.

Issues

Is the U.P. Act, 1955 repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 under Article 254?
Does the U.P. Act violate Article 31 (property/compensation)?
Can the doctrine of eclipse apply to post-Constitution laws?

Rules

Repugnancy Test (Art. 254): Direct conflict + same field.
Article 13: Post-Constitution law violating fundamental rights is void ab initio.
Doctrine of Eclipse: Does not apply to post-Constitution laws.
Article 31: No violation if law provides compensation framework.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline Image Available

Pre-1955: Appellants hold stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

1955: U.P. enacts the Transport Service (Development) Act with President’s assent; routes are reorganised.

High Court: Challenges to the Act and notifications fail.

1956: Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act introduces nationalisation of transport services.

Appeal: Appellants argue repugnancy and fundamental rights violation before the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant

After 1956, the U.P. Act became wholly void due to repugnancy.
The Act infringed Article 31 by affecting permits without fair compensation.
Doctrines like eclipse should save parts, else the law fails.

Respondent (State)

No direct conflict; both laws can operate in their spheres.
Compensation exists; Article 31 is not breached.
Eclipse does not apply to post-Constitution laws.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs. The U.P. Act remained a valid law. It was not wiped out by the 1956 amendment. It continued to support schemes made under it; only where a scheme was framed under the Central amendment would that part control.

The Court also held that Article 31 was not violated because the law provided for compensation. Finally, the doctrine of eclipse does not protect post-Constitution laws; such laws, if they violate fundamental rights, are void from the start.

Ratio Decidendi

No total repugnancy: U.P. Act stands; void only to the extent a Central scheme directly covers the same field.
Article 31: Compensation mechanism saves the law.
Eclipse inapplicable: Post-Constitution offending laws are void ab initio.

Why It Matters

This case gives a clean test for repugnancy under Article 254. It shows that a State law is not struck down unless there is a direct clash on the same field. It also fixes the scope of the doctrine of eclipse and clarifies that fair compensation addresses Article 31 concerns.

Key Takeaways

Same field + direct conflict is needed for repugnancy.
Compensation under Article 31 can save acquisition-related measures.
Eclipse does not rescue post-Constitution laws; they are void ab initio if they violate rights.
State schemes may continue unless overridden by a specific Central scheme.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Same Road? Same Clash.”

Same Road = Same legislative field.
Same Clash = Direct conflict required.
Pay & Proceed = Compensation meets Article 31.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Does the U.P. Act, 1955 fall due to Article 254 and does it violate Article 31?

Rule: Repugnancy needs same field + direct conflict; Article 31 needs compensation; eclipse not for post-Constitution laws.

Application: U.P. Act supports its schemes; only Central-scheme areas override. Compensation is provided.

Conclusion: Appeal dismissed; U.P. Act survives except where a Central scheme directly applies.

Glossary

Repugnancy: A conflict between Central and State laws on the same subject.
Void ab initio: Invalid from the very beginning.
Doctrine of Eclipse: A pre-Constitution law may be “shadowed” by rights but revive after change; not for post-Constitution laws.
Compensation: Payment for taking or affecting property or permits.