Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P
Article 13(1)
13. (1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P
Fact:
constitutional validity of the C. P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947.
petitioners has been carrying on business as stage carriage operator (under permits granted under Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939)
amendments were introduced by the C. P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P
Fact:
power was given to the Government → (i) to fix fares or freights throughout the Province or for any area or for any route (ii) to cancel any permit after the expiry of three months from the date of notification etc.
not only to regulate or control the fares or freights but also to take up the entire motor transport business in the province and run it in competition with and even to the exclusion of all motor transport operators.
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P
Fact:
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
Prima facie, therefore, it was an infraction of the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and would be void under Article 13(1)
The respondents contended that although the Act was initially violative of the Indian Constitution, after the passing of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 and Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, the inconsistencies were removed through the addition of Article 19(6) and the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act was functional again.
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P
Fact:
The petitioners in response categorically stated that the Act had become void pursuant to Article 13(1) and was considered dead unless re-enacted again.
The petitioners’ claims were however rejected and the arguments of the respondents were accepted.
Bhikaji Narain Dhakras v. State of M.P
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.
fundamental rights as prospective in nature.
It states that a pre-constitutional law inconsistent with the fundamental rights is not a nullity or void ab initio but only remains unenforceable, i.e., remains in a dormant state.
These laws also remain applicable non-citizens/Companies etc.