The Case of Bhikaji vs State of MP (1955)

August 1, 2024

This case led to the declaration and introduction of the doctrine of eclipse in India. 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. The Motor Vehicle Act came into being as a result. In this case, the constitutionality of the C.P. and Berar and Motor Vehicle (Amendment) legislation 1947 was questioned, and the legislation in question was declared legitimate.

bhikaji vs state of mp Case Facts

  • In the state of Madhya Pradesh, the two main private corporations that controlled the vehicle transport industry were C.P. Transport Service Ltd. and Provincial Transport Company Ltd. section 58 of the motor vehicle act of 1939 had granted the petitioners a permit to operate their business.
  • The Union government had exclusive control over the Motor Transport Business, and the State and Union governments jointly possessed 85% of the share capital.
  • article 32 of the indian constitution was the basis for five writ petitions (Petition Nos. 189 to 193).
  • The petitions submitted claimed that the government was granted extensive authority over the private transportation industry with the passing of the C.P. & Berar Act in 1947, which excluded all other motor vehicle operators.

bhikaji vs state of mp Issues

  • Whether the C.P. and Berar Amendment Act was lawful under the constitution or not?
  • Whether the act breached article 19 (1) (g) of the indian constitution or not?

Contentions by the Parties

Petitioner:

  • The article 19 (1) (f) of the indian constitution is broken by the C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, which is why it should be ruled void.
  • Due to its unconstitutionality, the Act is invalid.
  • After the Constitution went into effect, the Act was declared null and void, and it cannot be reinstated by further revisions.
  • The Act violates Article 31 by forbidding people from engaging in the transportation industry, which is an infringement on the right to property.
  • The Act cannot be resurrected since the First and Fourth Amendments are not retroactive.
  • Their source was Cooley’s Constitutional Limitation, Volume I, page 384. In 1955, Shagir Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. was decided.
  • Part III of the Constitution is violated by the Act, so it should be ruled unconstitutional.

Respondent:

  • The discrepancy in the Act was eliminated by the First Constitutional Amendment Act of 1951.
  • Limitations are imposed on fundamental rights according to Article 19 in sections 2 through 6.
  • Article 19(6) was revised by the First Constitutional Amendment Act to provide limitations on fundamental rights when it comes to engaging in any kind of trade, company, or profession.
  • Since the Act was created in the public interest and permits the state to act as a monopoly for the benefit of its citizens, it does not infringe fundamental rights.
  • The petition ought to be denied because the Act is lawful and does not infringe upon any basic rights.

bhikaji vs 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) 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.
  • The court stated that although the act’s defect was corrected on April 27, 1955, the petition was filed on May 27, 1955.

Clarity on the interpretation of constitutional provisions, particularly the degree to which pre-constitutional legislation might continue to be in effect in the face of new constitutional obligations, was provided by the Supreme Court’s decision in bhikaji vs state of mp. We are left with a sense of satisfaction in how the pertinent questions have been resolved, but we are also conscious of how constitutional law is still developing. Although the ruling gave much-needed clarification on the legality of pre-constitutional laws as well as the application of constitutional provisions, it left unanswered concerns about how these principles would change as society faced new difficulties.

The concepts established in this case will surely be reviewed and reinterpreted as India develops and changes, ensuring that the delicate balance between individual liberties and governmental obligations is maintained.

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

Leave a Comment