This article is written by Shamyana Parveen. This article covers the case of Deep Chand v. State of UP (1959), which is a remarkable judgement in Indian legal history, which essentially covers the doctrine of eclipse and the matter of repugnancy between State and Central laws. The judgement, in this case, rendered important principles concerning the elucidation of the Constitution of India, specifically Articles 13, 31, 245, 246, and 254, which deal with the fundamental rights, legislative powers of the Union and the States, and the doctrine of repugnancy.

Introduction

The Constitution of India framed by the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, and enforced on January 26, 1950, exercises authority over the Democratic Republic of India. The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delineates the distribution of powers between the Union and State governments. Certain parallels exist between the case of Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959) and the doctrine of repugnancy. The Supreme Court has addressed the doctrines of eclipse and repugnancy in this landmark case. The case of Deep Chand v. the State of Uttar Pradesh is a remarkable judgement in Indian legal history. It was decided by the Supreme Court of India on 15th January 1959. The case dealt with the Constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “U.P.Act”), and the scheme of nationalisation framed under it.

In the case, the Supreme Court noted that a post-constitutional law made under Article 13(2) which violates a fundamental right is void from its inception and a deceased law. It is void ab initio. The doctrine of eclipse does not have relevance to post-constitutional laws and consequently, an ensuing constitutional modification cannot resuscitate it. 

Details of the case

Case name: Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Download Now

Type of Case: Constitutional law case

Name of the Court: The Supreme Court of India

Bench: The then Chief Justice S.R. Das, Justice K. Subbarao, Justice N.H. Bhagwati, Justice B.P. Sinha, and Justice K.N. Wanchoo.

Date of Judgement: 15th January, 1959

Equivalent citations: AIR 1959 SC 648, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 8, AIR 1959 Supreme Court 648, 1959 SCJ 1069, ILR 1959 1 ALL 293

Name of the parties: Deep Chand (appellant) and the State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. (Respondents)

Laws involved in the case: The Constitution of India: Articles 13, 19(1), 31, 32, 37, 132, 133, 245, 246, and 254; Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955: Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, and 11(5); General Clauses Act, 1897: Section 6.

Background of Deep Chand vs. State of UP (1959)

The case centred on the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955. The State Legislature established this Act after taking the assent of the President. The case specifically challenges the constitutional validity of this Act and the validity of the scheme of nationalisation framed under it.

The Supreme Court had to determine whether the State Act was abhorrent to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and if so, whether the State Act, having received the President’s assent, could still be applied in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The court held that the State Act was absolutely repugnant to the central Act and that the doctrine of eclipse is relevant to the case. This doctrine posits that any law incompatible with fundamental rights is not rendered void but remains in a state of eclipse and can become efficacious again if the inconsistency is removed by a Constitutional Amendment.

Doctrine of repugnancy

The Doctrine of Repugnancy is a legitimate principle in the Indian Constitution that addresses the dispute between Central and State laws. It is preserved under Article 254 and serves as a crucial provision in managing the federal structure of the country by delineating the legislative powers of the Centre and the States.

Doctrine of eclipse

An eclipse occurs when one object blocks the view of another. The Doctrine of Eclipse comes into play when a law or Act violates fundamental rights. In such cases, the fundamental right takes precedence over the other law or Act, rendering it invalid but not void ab initio. If the limitations imposed by fundamental rights are removed, the law or Act can be reinstated.

The Doctrine of Eclipse declares that any law which is incompatible with fundamental rights is not void. It is not completely constrained but obliterated by fundamental rights. The dispute can be abolished by Constitutional Amendment.

The Judiciary is the protector of the privileges furnished in the Constitution of India. It is the chore of the judiciary to prevent the action of the Legislature and the Executive where they contravene these rights. The fundamental rights are given to the citizens subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution of India on 26th January 1950. When the Constitution was adopted, some laws were in direct conflict with the fundamental rights which were existing at that time, so the Supreme Court came up with certain principles or doctrines, in order to regulate the rationality of these laws, one of which was the ‘Doctrine of Eclipse’. This doctrine emerges straight from Article 13(1) of the Constitution of India which is a segment of the fundamental rights, which states, “all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the initiate of this Constitution in so far as they are incompatible with the provisions of this Part, i.e. Part III, shall, to the extent of such unpredictability, be void”. The doctrine of eclipse anticipates fundamental rights as expected in essence. It is stated that if a law predating the Constitution conflicts with fundamental rights, it isn’t considered non-existent or void from the outset. Instead, it remains dormant or inactive. This law continues to apply to all past transactions and to any rights and liabilities that were established before the Constitution was enacted. Now, let us look at the facts of this case which raised this issue of repugnancy:

Facts of Deep Chand vs. State of UP (1959)

  • The appellants were operating one business as stage carriages on different routes in Uttar Pradesh and were permitted to do the same under legal authority provided by the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 using buses that were owned by the Government.
  • The U.P. Legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955 and the government furnished a notice nationalising routes under Section 3.
  • The appellants received a notice under Section 5 of the U.P. Act, urging them to express disapproval, if any. Later, the objections were taken, they were notified that the same would be heard by a board.
  • The objections reported by all the drivers other than those in the Agra region were heard and the investigation into the Agra region was postponed because the drivers from the Agra territories did not show up again.
  • In the U.P. Gazette, a notification was released as per Section 8 of the Act. Moreover, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Agra communicated an order, supposedly issued by the Transport Commissioner, to the Agra legion operators, preventing them from operating stage carriages on the specified routes and advising them about permit transfers to other routes.

Issues raised

  1. Whether the provisions in Part III of the Constitution, which safeguard fundamental rights, merely serve as control or restrictions on the legislative authority granted to Parliament and State Legislatures by Article 245 and Article 246. Alternatively, do these rights form an essential foundation for defining and granting legislative competence?
  2. Whether the Doctrine of Eclipse applies solely to laws predating the Constitution’s adoption? Alternatively, can it also be invoked in the context of post-constitutional statutes falling within Article 13(2) of the Constitution?
  3. Are there any Constitutional disputes facing the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act 1955, passed by the State Legislature after Presidential sanction, in the wake of these appeals?
  4. Was there also a dispute over the legal foundation of the State Government’s nationalisation strategy and the associated notices released accordingly?

Arguments of the parties

Appellants

The petitioner raised several significant arguments. Some arguments presented by the petitioner are as follows:

  1. The petitioner challenged the Constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955 which was passed by the State Legislature after obtaining the assent of the President since it violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner as mentioned under Part III of the Constitution.
  2. The appellants contested the validity of the scheme of nationalisation framed under the U.P.Act. This scheme aimed to exclusively serve certain bus routes with State-owned buses. The appellants argued that their rights as permit-holders under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were affected by this scheme.
  3. The issue was brought forth by the petitioner about the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Central Act). They contended that the Central Act rendered the U.P. Act void.
  4. The appellants contended that the U.P.Act violated their fundamental rights, particularly Article 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession or occupation). Further, it would violate Article 31 of the Constitution, as it was before the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955, as, though the State had assimilated the appellant’s interest in a commercial undertaking and no compensation for the said interest was given as it should be under Article 31.

Respondents

The respondents presented several arguments in defence of the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955 and the scheme of nationalisation.

  1. The respondents contended that the U.P.Act did not become wholly void under Article 254(1) of the Constitution upon the passing of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956, and continued to be a valid law supporting the scheme already framed under the U.P.Act.
  2. Even if the Central Act was construed as a repeal of the U.P.Act, the repeal did not destroy or efface the scheme already framed under the U.P.Act due to the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which saved the scheme.
  3. Further, it was contended by the respondents that even if the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 could not be relied on to sustain the validity of the U.P.Act, there was no deprivation of property of the appellants.

Laws discussed in Deep Chand vs. State of UP (1959)

In this case, there are some important laws and Constitutional Articles that were discussed, which include:

  1. Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955

This was a State law under which the scheme of nationalisation of transport services was formulated. The Act was enacted to ensure the development of an efficient road transport system, which was considered essential for the planned development of the State’s industrial and economic resources.

Under this Act, the government had the power to nationalise routes and services, which meant that certain routes could be exclusively held by state-run buses. This was said to be done in the interest of the general public and for the efficient organisation of road transport.

  1. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

The appellants held permits under this Act and were operating buses on various routes in Uttar Pradesh.

  1. Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956

This central legislation was argued to have brought about a repugnancy with the State law, leading to the challenge of the constitutional validity of the U.P.Act.

  1. General Clauses Act, 1897

Section 6 of this Act was invoked to argue that even if the central law was considered to have repealed the State law, the scheme already framed under the State law would not be nullified.

  1. Constitution of India
  • Article 13: It deals with laws which are inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. This doctrine holds that any law which was consistent with the fundamental rights at the time of its enactment but became inconsistent due to a subsequent amendment to the fundamental rights is not nullified but remains in a state of eclipse. It becomes unenforceable only against those to whom the amendment applies.
  • Article 31: This article, before the amendment, dealt with the right to property and the provision for compensation for expropriation. The right to property was made a legal right and was moved to Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII of the Constitution. This means that while property is no longer a fundamental right, it is still protected under the Constitution. These changes provided the government with more flexibility in acquiring land for public welfare and land reform measures while ensuring that individuals receive fair compensation for the acquisition of their property. The amendment aimed to balance the need for the State to implement land reforms and other public welfare projects with the protection of private property rights. Article 300A states that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law”. This implies that the government must follow the due process of law if it needs to acquire private property. The obligation to pay compensation for property acquired by the state, though not explicitly mentioned in Article 300A, is inferred within the Article.
  • Article 245: It delineates the extent of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States. The case of State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch & Co. (1964), involved the interpretation of Articles 245 and 246 along with the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Supreme Court discussed the legislative competence of the State and the Union and the concept of repugnancy between State and Union laws.
  • Article 246: It specifies the subject matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States. The distribution of legislative powers under Article 246 ensures a balance between the central authority and the autonomy of States, reflecting upon the federal structure of the Indian governance system. It allows for both uniformity and diversity in legislation, catering to the needs of the nation as a whole and its constituent parts. 
  • Article 254: This is the key article related to the doctrine of repugnancy, which is central to the case. The case of M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979), dealt with the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254 and the powers of the State legislature versus the Union legislature. The Supreme Court held that when there is a direct conflict between a central law and a State law, the central law will prevail over the State law.

Judgement in Deep Chand vs. State of UP (1959)

The Supreme Court of India delivered the judgement on 15th January 1959. The case primarily dealt with the doctrine of eclipse and the issue of repugnancy between State law and central law under the Indian Constitution.

The case challenged the Constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955. 

It was concluded that even if the central Act was construed as amounting to a repeal of the U.P.Act, the repeal did not destroy or efface the scheme already framed under the U.P.Act due to the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. 

The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of eclipse did not apply in this case. The legislation was passed in 1955 and it immediately became empty. Because it was stillborn, it is now extinct. Therefore, there was never rebirth. If the State deems it necessary, fresh legislation should be passed. It was further stated that when a statute is passed after the enforcement of the Constitution and it is opposed to fundamental rights, it is void from the very beginning. 

Rationale behind this judgement

The rationale behind the case’s decision is based on the interpretation of constitutional provisions concerning the legislative competence of the State and the Centre, particularly in the context of the Concurrent List.

Some of the reasons that formed the basis of the judgement:

  • Doctrine of eclipse: The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of eclipse, which posits that any law that is inconsistent with fundamental rights is not void but is merely overshadowed by fundamental rights. Such a law is not dead but lies dormant and can be revived if the inconsistency is removed at a later stage. But the same is not the case with post-constitutional laws. 
  • Article 254 of the Constitution: The Court examined Article 254, which deals with repugnancy between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the State Legislatures. It was determined that the State law was not rendered void due to the subsequent central law as the State law was not repugnant to the central law at the time of its inception.
  • Balance of lgislative powers: The judgement underscored the balance of legislative powers between the Centre and the States, emphasizing that State laws are not automatically rendered invalid by the mere existence of Union laws in the Concurrent List.
  • Adequate compensation: The Court also considered the aspect of adequate compensation provided for in the impugned Act, which aligned with the requirements of Article 31 of the Constitution concerning the right to property.

Significance of the case in the present pretext

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India scrutinised the doctrine of eclipse. The judicial statute established that the principle of eclipse is inapplicable to any law enacted after the Constitution that violates fundamental rights, rendering such a law invalid from the outset. In Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court of India has determined that the legislation enacted post-constitutionally is founded on Article 13(2), which violated fundamental rights. Consequently, it is deemed unlawful from the instant of its enactment and is considered a non-operative regulation. It is null and void from the beginning. The post-constitutional legislation cannot be brought back by a future Constitutional Amendment because it is not covered from the viewpoint of the doctrine of eclipse. Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision established a significant legal precedent by distinguishing between both the clauses of Article 13. While pre-constitutional laws remain in effect unless they contravene Part III, post-constitutional laws that do so are outrightly prohibited and deemed null to that degree.

Judgements referred to in this case

The judgement in Deep Chand v. the State of Uttar Pradesh, 1959 referred to several case laws to arrive at its conclusions. Some of the cases are as follows:

State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, 1951

This case was significant in determining the extent of the State’s power to legislate on matters in the concurrent list and the concept of repugnancy between State and central laws. This case was referred to discuss the doctrine of pith substance in the context of legislative competence. In the Deep Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 1959, the Supreme Court of India used the Balsara judgement to illustrate the principles governing the determination of whether a law relates to a subject in one list or another in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. In Deep Chand’s judgement, the reference to the Balsara case helped in understanding the extent to which a State law can operate without encroaching upon the Union List and the powers of the Parliament. It was an important precedent to determine the repugnancy between State and Central laws, especially in cases where both have legislated on a subject within the Concurrent List.

Tika Ramji v. the State of Uttar Pradesh, 1956 

This case dealt with the issues of repugnancy and the doctrine of pith and substance in the context of State and central legislative powers. This case was significant as it dealt with the constitutional validity of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. In the Deep Chand case, the reference to the Tika Ramji case helped the judges to analyze the extent to which a State law operates without encroaching upon the Union List and the powers of the Parliament.

Saghir Ahmad v. the State of Uttar Pradesh, 1955 

This case was pivotal in discussing the State’s power to nationalise certain industries and services, which was relevant to the issues in the case of Deep Chand. The judgement of the case of Saghir Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh became an important reference point in the Deep Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1959, the case for understanding the limits of State power in regulating trade and commerce under Article 301 of the Constitution and the concept of freedom of trade is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).

Conclusion

Disputes frequently occur when there are overlapping laws from both the central and State governments within a particular area. These issues may occur when either the Union or a State unlawfully encroaches upon the domain of the other’s legislation. Disputes can also emerge in the absence of a direct encroachment upon each other’s jurisdiction. Legal conflicts can emerge when both Union and State laws pertain to the same subject matter. Sometimes, the State legislation becomes inoperative because it irreconcilably clashes with the Union law.

The Supreme Court determined that the enactment of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 by Parliament did not render the U.P. Transport Service Act completely invalid under Article 254(1) of the Constitution. Rather, the Act remained in force, upholding the transportation scheme that had been established under it. The Court opined that even if the Central Act were to be interpreted as repealing the U.P.Act under the provisions of Article 254(2), this would not nullify the transportation scheme that was already in place under the U.P.Act. This scheme was protected by the saving clauses found in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. The Court affirmed that the U.P.Act was not in violation of Article 31 of the Constitution prior to its amendment in 1955. Specifically, Section 11(5) of the U.P.Act was highlighted for ensuring the provision of fair compensation.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

When does a law made by the State legislature hold ascendancy over the Parliamentary law?

A law made by a State legislature can hold ascendancy over a Parliamentary law in the context of India’s federal structure under certain conditions as outlined in Article 254 of the Constitution of India. According to Article 254(1), if any provision of a law made by the State legislature is repugnant to a provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, then the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the State legislature, shall prevail and the law made by the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.

However, there is an exception under Article 254(2), which states that if the State law has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, then the State law may prevail in that state. Nevertheless, even in such a case, Parliament can again override the State law by subsequently making a law on the same matter.

How did Article 254 of the Constitution play a role in this case?

Article 254 of the Indian Constitution concerns the repugnancy between laws made by Parliament and laws made by State legislatures. The court examined whether the State law was rendered void due to the ensuing central law.

What was the importance of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in this judgement?

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was notable because the scheme previously encompassed by the U.P.Act was upheld, even though the central law could be construed as an annulment of the U.P. Act.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here