{"id":4763,"date":"2025-02-12T21:19:29","date_gmt":"2025-02-12T15:49:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=4763"},"modified":"2025-03-12T01:29:46","modified_gmt":"2025-03-11T19:59:46","slug":"bhikaji-narain-dhakras-and-others-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/bhikaji-narain-dhakras-and-others-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-case-summary\/","title":{"rendered":"Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Others Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another 1955 (Case Summary)"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"4763\" class=\"elementor elementor-4763\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-205524a3 elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"205524a3\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-57d2200a\" data-id=\"57d2200a\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-2c0ba2bf elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"2c0ba2bf\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-2dda16\" data-id=\"2dda16\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-26d7c360 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"26d7c360\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Others Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another 1955 (Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-5e05ac6a elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"5e05ac6a\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1312\" height=\"736\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-law-book-open-to-a-page-wit_Dq3D0sUvSWayyixdDptPKg_qbmLpTgJTe-G7kRVelVx_g-1.jpeg\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-4777\" alt=\"\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-law-book-open-to-a-page-wit_Dq3D0sUvSWayyixdDptPKg_qbmLpTgJTe-G7kRVelVx_g-1.jpeg 1312w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-law-book-open-to-a-page-wit_Dq3D0sUvSWayyixdDptPKg_qbmLpTgJTe-G7kRVelVx_g-1-300x168.jpeg 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-law-book-open-to-a-page-wit_Dq3D0sUvSWayyixdDptPKg_qbmLpTgJTe-G7kRVelVx_g-1-1024x574.jpeg 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-law-book-open-to-a-page-wit_Dq3D0sUvSWayyixdDptPKg_qbmLpTgJTe-G7kRVelVx_g-1-150x84.jpeg 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/a-photo-of-a-law-book-open-to-a-page-wit_Dq3D0sUvSWayyixdDptPKg_qbmLpTgJTe-G7kRVelVx_g-1-768x431.jpeg 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1312px) 100vw, 1312px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-68eea85 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"68eea85\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This case involves the interpretation of Article 13 and the doctrine of eclipse, which states that pre-constitutional laws rendered inoperative due to inconsistency with fundamental rights are not abrogated but merely eclipsed, allowing for revival upon the removal of such inconsistency.<\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/bhikaji-narain-dhakras-and-others-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-case-summary\/#Facts_of_Bhikaji_Narain_Dhakras_and_Others_Vs_The_State_of_Madhya_Pradesh\" >Facts of Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Others Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/bhikaji-narain-dhakras-and-others-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-case-summary\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/bhikaji-narain-dhakras-and-others-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-case-summary\/#Judgment_of_Bhikaji_Narain_Dhakras_and_Others_Vs_The_State_of_Madhya_Pradesh\" >Judgment of Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Others Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/constitutional-law\/bhikaji-narain-dhakras-and-others-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-case-summary\/#Read_the_Judgment_Below\" >Read the Judgment Below<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Bhikaji_Narain_Dhakras_and_Others_Vs_The_State_of_Madhya_Pradesh\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Others Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The petitioners operated as stage carriage operators (transport service) with permits granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 was enacted, empowering the Provincial Government to monopolize motor transport.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">On January 26, 1950, the Constitution of India came into force. Article 19(1)(g) guaranteed citizens the right to practice any occupation, trade, or business, and Article 31(2) guaranteed their right to property.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The 1947 Act became inconsistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 31(2), thereby triggering the application of Article 13(1), which renders laws &#8220;void&#8221; to the extent of their inconsistency with fundamental rights.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, amended Article 19(6) to expressly permit the State to create monopolies in certain businesses, including motor transport. This amendment effectively removed the inconsistency between the 1947 Act and Article 19(1)(g).<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">As a result of the First Amendment, the previously dormant 1947 Act was &#8220;revivified&#8221; and became operative.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">On February 4, 1955, the State of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification declaring its intention to take over certain bus routes, excluding private operators such as the petitioners.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">On April 27, 1955, the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 came into effect, further modifying Article 31.<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> This amendment clarified that State regulations of businesses did not necessarily amount to the &#8220;acquisition&#8221; of property. The amendment narrowed the definition of \u201cacquisition\u201d under Article 31, explicitly stating that a law depriving a person of property would not be considered \u201ccompulsory acquisition\u201d if it did not transfer ownership or possession to the state.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">On May 27, 1955, the petitioners filed writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the 1947 Act and the subsequent government notification on the ground that it violated Article 19(1)(g) as well as Article 31(2).<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The petitioners contended that the creation of a state monopoly, which would effectively nullify their permits <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">granted to them under Motor Vehicle Act, 1939<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, violated their constitutional rights. They argued that the permits constituted &#8220;property&#8221; under Article 31(2) and that the government&#8217;s actions, while not directly confiscating the permits, amounted to an acquisition of this property right. They further argued that the restrictions on their trade infringed upon their rights under Article 19(1)(g).<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the C.P. &amp; Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 became void under Article 13(1) for being inconsistent with the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 19(1)(g) and 31(2)?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Bhikaji_Narain_Dhakras_and_Others_Vs_The_State_of_Madhya_Pradesh\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of <\/b><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Others Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court primarily considered the constitutionality of the C.P. &amp; Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947, in light of Articles 13(1), 19(1)(g), 31(2) of the Indian Constitution and doctrine of eclipse, as well as the impact of subsequent constitutional amendments on the Act\u2019s validity.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The C.P. &amp; Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947, became void under Article 13(1) of the Indian Constitution to the extent it conflicted with fundamental rights in Articles 19(1)(g) and 31(2). Initially valid when enacted, the Act conflicted with newly established fundamental rights following the Constitution&#8217;s commencement on January 26, 1950, as it allowed for a state monopoly in motor transport, infringing on the right to practice any profession and the right to property. Article 13(1) declares pre-constitutional laws void if inconsistent with fundamental rights, and the Supreme Court clarified that &#8220;void&#8221; means inoperative rather than entirely annihilated, applying the Eclipse Doctrine to the Act.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This doctrine allowed the Act to remain valid for past transactions and non-citizens while being revived by subsequent constitutional amendments: the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which allowed state monopolies in businesses, and the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, which clarified that certain regulations do not constitute compulsory acquisition.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Consequently, the Act was &#8220;revivified,&#8221; making it fully operative, and the notifications issued under it were upheld, dismissing the petitioners&#8217; challenges and highlighting the complex relationship between laws and fundamental rights in India.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court held that the C.P. &amp; Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947, was void under Article 13(1) due to its inconsistency with Articles 19(1)(g) and 31(2). However, the Act was revived by subsequent constitutional amendments, notably the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which allowed for state monopolies in specific businesses. Consequently, the notifications issued under the Act were upheld, validating the state&#8217;s actions and dismissing the petitioners&#8217; challenges. Further, the Supreme Court also differentiated the Indian application of the Doctrine of Eclipse from American jurisprudence. In the U.S. context, laws deemed unconstitutional are considered void ab initio (invalid from the outset). In contrast, Indian Pre-Constitution laws were valid until the Constitution came into force, providing a unique perspective on their operation under fundamental rights.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Read_the_Judgment_Below\"><\/span><strong><span style=\"color: #993300;\">Read the Judgment Below<\/span><\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-33570ed elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"33570ed\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Bhikaji-Narain-Dhakras-And-Others-vs-The-State-Of-Madhya-Pradesh-And-Another-Fawyerz-1.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This case involves the interpretation of Article 13 and the doctrine of eclipse, which states that pre-constitutional laws rendered inoperative due to inconsistency with fundamental rights are not abrogated but merely eclipsed, allowing for revival upon the removal of such inconsistency.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4776,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[8],"tags":[87,105,12],"class_list":["post-4763","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-constitutional-law","tag-article-13","tag-article-19","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4763","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4763"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4763\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4941,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4763\/revisions\/4941"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4776"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4763"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4763"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4763"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}