BHIKAJI NARAIN DHAKRAS AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER.

BHIKAJI NARAIN DHAKRAS AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER.

Laws existing before the Constitution, rendered void to the extent of their inconsistency with fundamental rights under Article 13(1), are not totally abrogated but rendered inoperative as against citizens during the period of inconsistency. Once the inconsistency is removed by constitutional amendment, such laws revive and operate from the date of the amendment, subject to the amendment not being retrospective. Thus, the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 revived after the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution removed the inconsistency, and the subsequent state notification was valid.

Parties
Petitioners: Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and others; Respondents: The State of Madhya Pradesh and another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 September 1955
Procedural Posture
Petitions Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights / Judgment by Supreme Court of India
Outcome
Petitions Dismissed
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights, Void Laws, Amendment of Constitution, Article 13, Article 19(6), Article 31(2), State Monopoly, Motor Vehicles Regulation
Constitutional Law Fundamental Rights Void Laws Amendment of Constitution Article 13 Article 19(6) Article 31(2) State Monopoly +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and others

Petitioners

The State of Madhya Pradesh and another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Petitions Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for Enforcement of Fundamental Rights / Judgment by Supreme Court of India

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 became void upon the commencement of the Constitution for inconsistency with Articles 19(1)(g) and 31(2) under Article 13(1) and if such law could revive after removal of the inconsistency by constitutional amendment.

Ratio Decidendi

Laws existing before the Constitution, rendered void to the extent of their inconsistency with fundamental rights under Article 13(1), are not totally abrogated but rendered inoperative as against citizens during the period of inconsistency. Once the inconsistency is removed by constitutional amendment, such laws revive and operate from the date of the amendment, subject to the amendment not being retrospective. Thus, the C.P. & Berar Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1947 revived after the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution removed the inconsistency, and the subsequent state notification was valid.

Court Disposition

Petitions Dismissed

Orders

  • Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.