|Case No.||AIR 1955 SC 781|
|Date of Judgment||29.09.1955|
|Petitioner||Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Others.|
|Respondent||The state of Madhya Pradesh and Others.|
|Bench||Das, Sudhi Ranjan Bhagwati, Natwarlal H. Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama Imam, Syed Jaffar Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara.|
This case deal with the constitutional validity of the C.P. and Berar and Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act 1947. By introducing this act, the state government tries to dominate citizens by introducing this act. After this act the doctrine of eclipse takes place.
Facts of the case: –
- So, in this case the state government is authorised by the medium of the C.P. and Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act 1974 that if they wanted to exclude all the private vehicle from business they can do so by the medium of this act.
- So, after this act the state government is authorise with power.
- During this period of the case, our Indian constitution implemented on dated 26 January 1950 and this act violated the article 19 (1)(g) of the constitution because under this article 19(1)(g) states that every citizen shall have the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
- After this contradiction takes place between the act and the provision of this case because on the one side, they are providing the right to the citizen or on the other had they are excluding their right.
- After this the central government made the amendment under the article and added the article 19(6)(i) to protect themselves.
- Under this new amendment the central government stated that the government can stop people from using their right based on technical ground. After this the petitioner file the case.
Issues in the case: –
- Does the provision included under the C.P. and Berar and Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act 1947 shall be void or unconstitutional according to article 13(1)?
- Does the article 19 (1)(g) of the constitution be violated by the act?
- The petitioner stated that the act which was passed by the state government violates article 19(1)(g) which provides the right to the citizen to engage themselves in any work of profession based on trade, occupation, or business.
- The petitioner also stated that after the passing act the central government has passed the amendment which is showing the dominating power because it straightly violates the fundamental right which is guaranteed under Indian constitution in the year 1950.
- The respondent stated under the argument that although the act violated the article 19(1) (g) but the amendment made by the central government does not hold any dominating or monopoly position.
- After the respondent statement, the petitioner in assertion stated that the amendment made and included in the article 19(6)(i) is null and void according to the article 13(1) of the Indian constitution under which it stated that all the pre-constitutional laws which go contrary to the provision of the Indian constitution shall be strictly declare unconstitutional and void.
Judgement of the case: –
The supreme court held in this case by explaining the doctrine of eclipse which is related to article 13(1) of the constitution. The supreme court stated that if there is any pre-existing law which conflicts the provision after the implementation of Indian constitution shall become unconstitutional and void but if in future the government make an amendment in the constitution and after that amendment that law does not show any conflict provision with the Indian constitution become enacted or implemented.
Supreme court also stated in the present case that the provision under the C.P. and Berar and Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act 1947 is contrary to the provision of the Indian constitution because it violates the article 19(1)(g) but after this the government made the amendment by including article 19 (6)(i) which does not show any conflict with the provision of the Indian constitution can be considered as valid and constitutional.
To conclude here, this case basically deals with the Indian constitution under which the government by passing the act which got contrary to the provision of the Indian constitution and which takes the fundamental right of the citizens not to performed their rights. But in last the supreme court protect the rights of the citizens and save constitution article being violated.
Reference of the case: –
This Case Analysis is written by SOMYA RAJAWAT student of Maharani Laxmi Bai Arts and Commerce College, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh.
Intern at legal vidhiya.