Bhikaji Narain Dhakras and Ors. v State of Madhya Pradesh

Facts

• A state law nationalising motor transport, enacted before the Constitution came into force, was challenged as inconsistent with the fundamental right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g)
• After the challenge arose, the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 inserted Article 19(6), permitting the state to carry on trade to the exclusion of citizens, which removed the inconsistency
• The question was whether the pre-Constitution law, having been inconsistent at commencement, remained permanently void, or whether it revived once the amendment removed the inconsistency

Issue

1. Whether a pre-Constitution law inconsistent with a fundamental right at the commencement of the Constitution is permanently void, or whether it can revive if a subsequent constitutional amendment removes the inconsistency.

Held

• Article 13(1) uses the words "to the extent of such inconsistency," meaning the law is not wiped out of the statute book; it merely becomes unenforceable (eclipsed) against citizens to the extent of the inconsistency
• Once the inconsistency is removed (by constitutional amendment or otherwise), the law is no longer under a shadow and becomes fully operative again, without requiring fresh legislative enactment
• This is the doctrine of eclipse: the fundamental right acts like a cloud eclipsing the law; when the cloud is removed, the law shines forth again
• The doctrine applies to pre-Constitution laws (valid when enacted, only inconsistent upon Constitution's commencement), unlike post-Constitution laws inconsistent with fundamental rights which are void ab initio under Article 13(2)

Ratio Decidendi

A pre-Constitution law inconsistent with a fundamental right is not void ab initio; it remains valid but unenforceable (eclipsed) to the extent of the inconsistency, and automatically revives to full operation once the inconsistency is removed by a subsequent constitutional amendment, without any need for re-enactment.