Introduction:

Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1959 SC 648) stands as a pivotal judgment in Indian constitutional law, particularly concerning the interplay between pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws vis-à-vis fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. This case definitively established the principle that the Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws and not to post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, in this landmark ruling, clarified the legal status of laws enacted after the Constitution came into force but found to be inconsistent with its fundamental rights provisions.

Issues Before the Court:

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955, a post-constitutional law, which empowered the State Government to create a monopoly in road transport services, was void ab initio (from the beginning) to the extent it contravened the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) of the Constitution. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Doctrine of Eclipse, previously applied to pre-constitutional laws, could also be extended to post-constitutional laws that infringed upon fundamental rights.

Analysis:

The petitioners, who were private bus operators, challenged the validity of the 1955 Act, arguing that it violated their fundamental right to carry on their business. The State contended that even if the Act infringed Article 19(1)(g), it was merely eclipsed by the fundamental right and could become operative again if Article 19 were amended to remove the inconsistency. This argument was based on the precedent set in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay, which applied the Doctrine of Eclipse to a pre-constitutional law.

However, the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Subba Rao, distinguished the situation of pre-constitutional and post-constitutional laws. The Court reasoned that pre-constitutional laws were valid when enacted. Article 13(1) of the Constitution did not render them void ab initio but only made them void to the extent of their inconsistency with fundamental rights from the date the Constitution came into force. The fundamental right cast a shadow or eclipse, rendering the inconsistent part inoperative. Once the shadow was removed (e.g., through constitutional amendment), the eclipsed part could revive.

In contrast the Court held that post-constitutional laws stand on a different footing. Article 13(2) explicitly states that "The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void." The Court interpreted this provision to mean that the legislature has no power to make a law that violates fundamental rights. Any law made in contravention of Article 13(2) is stillborn and void ab initio. There is no existing valid law that can be eclipsed. The very legislative competence to enact such a law is absent.

The Court emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law, and any law enacted after its commencement must conform to its provisions, including fundamental rights. If a post-constitutional law violates a fundamental right, it is a nullity from its inception and cannot be revived by a subsequent amendment that removes the inconsistency. To hold otherwise would be to suggest that the legislature could, by violating the Constitution, create a law that would become valid upon a future constitutional amendment, which would be contrary to the principle of constitutional supremacy.

Judgment:

Based on the above analysis, the Supreme Court held that the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955, to the extent it created a monopoly and thereby infringed upon the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g), was void ab initio. The Court rejected the State's argument that the Doctrine of Eclipse applied to this post-constitutional law. The infringement was not a mere eclipse but a fundamental flaw that rendered the law void from its very inception.

Conclusion:

The Deep Chand case is a landmark decision that clearly demarcated the application of the Doctrine of Eclipse. It firmly established that:

• • The Doctrine of Eclipse applies only to pre-constitutional laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights. Such laws are not void ab initio but become inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency and can be revived if the inconsistency is removed by a constitutional amendment.
• • Post-constitutional laws that violate fundamental rights are void ab initio under Article 13(2) of the Constitution. The legislature lacks the competence to enact such laws, and they cannot be revived by subsequent constitutional amendments.

This judgment reinforced the supremacy of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution and provided The Deep Chand case continues to be a foundational precedent in constitutional law, guiding the judiciary in assessing the validity of laws enacted in independent India against the touchstone of fundamental rights.