The Case of Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Ors vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1955)

The doctrine of eclipse was declared and introduced in India because to this case. It was a significant legal case. The State Government was granted authority by the motor vehicle act 1939, to oversee and control transportation in the states of M.P., C.P., and Berar. As a result, the motor vehicle act was established. In this case, the C.P. and Berar and Motor Vehicle (Amendment) legislation 1947’s constitutional validity was contested, and the contested legislation was made lawful.

bhikaji narain dhakras v state of mp Case Facts

• The Matrix of Factual Data, the petitioners were Madhya Pradesh carriage owners who had long operated their business in accordance with licenses issued under the motor vehicle act 1939.
• The main issue started when a new amendment gave the province’s government more authority, essentially granting them the ability to monopolize the transportation industry.
• This was demonstrated on February 4, 1955, when the province took control of specific routes, severely harming the petitioners’ financial situation.
• On May 27, 1955, the petitioners filed a writ case before the Supreme Court, seeking to refute the 1947 amendment’s constitutionality.
• They argued that the aforementioned change violated their freedom to engage in trade as guaranteed by Article 19 and that it was null and void according to article 13(1) of the indian constitution.
• Following much thought and discussion, the Supreme Court of India rendered a historic decision on September 29, 1955, dismissing the petitions and affirming the act’s legality on the grounds of doctrine of eclipse.

bhikaji narain dhakras v state of mp Issues

• Is the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 amendable by the C.P. and Berar Amendment Act of 1947 constitutionally valid?
• Does the contested Act violate article 19(1)(g) of the indian constitution?
• Does the contested Act violate Article 31 of the Indian Constitution?
• Is it permissible for judges to evaluate legislation that have already been passed under Article 13 of the Indian Constitution?
• Does the state’s prohibition and monopoly fall under the definition of reasonable constraints under article 19(6) of the indian constitution?
• Do the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution apply retroactively?

Contentions by the Parties

Petitioner:

• The petitioners claimed that the C.P. Berar Act’s amendments violated the fundamental rights that Indian people are entitled to. Thus, the Act ought to be ruled null and void.
• According to the petitioners, Amendments are null and void under Article 13(1) and cannot be resurrected by further Amendments. That would need to be replayed.
• The petitioners further claimed that the C.P. Berar Amendment contradicts the provisions listed in Article 13(1) and violates Article 19(1)(g).
• The petitioners argued that retroactive application of the First and Fourth Amendments was not permitted.

Respondent:

• The respondents cited the 1951 First Constitutional Amendment’s provision of “reasonable restriction” under article 19(6) of the indian constitution. They both concluded that the law did not align with the Indian Constitution. Nevertheless, the insertion of the aforementioned clause removed the discrepancies.
• The respondents contended that the contradictions and anomalies of the C.P. Berar Act were examined and changed after the First and Fourth Constitutional Amendments were passed. As a result, it became operational again, and its constitutionality is undeniable.

bhikaji narain dhakras v state of mp Judgment

• The Court ruled that the act’s question would have been declared unlawful since it interferes with a citizen’s ability to engage in any kind of business, trade, or profession had the constitutional amendment not been implemented.
• However, the statute in question, which had allowed the state to control a monopoly in the transportation or carriage industry, was repealed when the first Constitutional Amendment was ratified in 1951.
• The Court further noted that since article 19(6) of the indian constitution lacked meditative intent, it could not be applied to rights and obligations that arose between January 26, 1950, and June 18, 1955.
• Nevertheless, with the amendment, all citizens are subject to the limitations and restrictions.
• According to the court, the petition was submitted on May 27, 1955, while the act’s flaw was fixed on April 27, 1955.

The petitioners in this case argued that the C.P. Berar Act violated their fundamental rights as Indian citizens and that, as a result, it ought to be deemed invalid in accordance with Article 13. Nevertheless, the court used the Eclipse Doctrine to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that since the pre-constitutional law’s discrepancy was resolved by later revisions, there was no need to declare it completely void, repeal it, and reenact it.

The court’s decision in the respondent’s favour highlights the method used by jurists to interpret the constitution, emphasizing the interaction between pre- and post-constitutional legal systems. The court acknowledged the continued applicability of pre-constitutional legislation pursuant to constitutional principles by upholding the Doctrine of Eclipse. The rich history of India and how it influenced modern law were highlighted in this case.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf