Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Ors. v. State Of Madhya Pradesh and Anr, AIR 1955 SC 781

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and other petitioners were private stage carriage operators carrying on transport business in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947.

The impugned legislation conferred extensive powers upon the Provincial Government, including authority to nationalize road transport services and create a State monopoly in the transport sector.

After the commencement of the Constitution of India on 26 January 1950, the petitioners contended that the Act became unconstitutional because it infringed: Article 19(1)(g) — the fundamental right to carry on trade or business; and Article 31(2) — the right to property.

The petitioners further argued that once the law became void under Article 13(1), it could not subsequently be revived merely through constitutional amendments.

According to the petitioners: The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 and the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 could not automatically revive the invalid law; and A fresh re-enactment by the legislature was necessary.

The State of Madhya Pradesh defended the legislation by arguing that the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 introduced Article 19(6), which expressly permitted the State to create monopolies in trade or business.

The State contended that the constitutional amendment removed the inconsistency between the Act and Article 19(1)(g), thereby reviving the law.

Meaning of “Void” Under Article 13(1): The Supreme Court examined the scope and effect of Article 13(1) of the Constitution. The Court held that the expression “void” in Article 13(1) does not mean that the law is obliterated altogether from the statute book. Instead, a pre-Constitution law inconsistent with fundamental rights remains legally existent but becomes inoperative or unenforceable against citizens to the extent of the inconsistency. Thus, the law is not dead but merely overshadowed by the fundamental right.

Doctrine of Eclipse: The Court formulated the celebrated “Doctrine of Eclipse.” According to this doctrine: A pre-Constitution law inconsistent with fundamental rights is not nullified altogether; It remains in a dormant or eclipsed condition; The eclipse exists only so long as the inconsistency with fundamental rights continues. Once the inconsistency is removed, the eclipse disappears and the law becomes fully operative again.

Effect of the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951: The Court observed that the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 amended Article 19(6) and expressly enabled the State to carry on trade or business to the exclusion of citizens. This amendment validated State monopolies and removed the constitutional inconsistency that previously existed between the impugned Act and Article 19(1)(g). Consequently, the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 automatically became operative once again.

Re-Enactment Not Necessary: The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the law required fresh legislative enactment. It held that since the law had never been completely wiped out or repealed, there was no necessity for re-enactment. The removal of the constitutional limitation automatically restored the enforceability of the law.