Deep Chand vs State of UP - Case Analysis

Introduction of Deep Chand vs State of UP

In Deep Chand vs State of UP, the Appellants were operating stage carriages in the state of Uttar Pradesh under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and challenged the U.P. Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955. The issue revolved around the conflict between the state legislation and the central Motor Vehicles Act and also the applicability of the doctrine of eclipse. The case centred on the constitutional validity of the U.P. Act in light of its repugnancy with central law and fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.

Historical Context and Facts of Deep Chand vs State of UP

In the case at hand, the Appellants were operating stage carriages on various routes in Uttar Pradesh under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. The buses used by the Appellant were owned by the Government. 

Enactment of U.P Transport Service (Development) Act

The Uttar Pradesh Legislature in 1955 enacted the U.P. Transport Service (Development) Act. The Act aimed to nationalise certain routes. 

Notice of Nationalisation of Routes

The government issued a notice declaring the nationalisation of routes under Section 3 of the Act.

Objections raised under Section 5

The Appellants were served a notice under Section 5 of the Act, allowing them to raise objections to the nationalisation. A board was constituted to hear the objections. 

Notification under Section 8

A notification was published in the U.P. Gazette in accordance with Section 8 of the Act. 

Communication from Regional Transport Authority

The Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Agra on behalf of the Transport Commissioner communicated an order to the Agra region operators and barred them from operating on the nationalised routes and directed them to transfer their permits to other routes.

Issue addressed in Deep Chand vs State of UP

The main question which was addressed in this case-

• 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?
• Does the Doctrine of Eclipse merely refer to legislation passed before the ratification of the Constitution, or could this additionally be applied to any sort of post-Constitutional statute that is covered by Article 13(2) of the Constitution?
• Does the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act 1955 which was passed by the State Legislature after receiving the President's acceptance, face any constitutional challenges in light of these appeals?
• Did they furthermore contest the legality underlying the state government’s nationalisation plan as well as the related notices that were released in accordance with it? 

Legal Provisions involved in Deepchand vs State of UP

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897

Section 6 of the Act deals with the effect of repeal. It states that where this Act, or any or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not

1. revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect
2. affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder
3. affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed
4. affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed
5. affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid

and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.

Article 13 of the Constitution of India

Article 13 deals with the Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of the fundamental rights. It provides that-

1. All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Pan, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
2. 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.
3. In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,-

1. “law” includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law
2. “laws in force” includes laws passed or made by Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.

4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.

Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India

Article 19(1) provides-

1. a) Freedom of speech and Expression
2. b) Freedom of Assembly
3. c) Freedom to form Association or Unions or Co-operative Societies
4. d) Freedom of Movement
5. e) Freedom to reside and settle 
6. g) Freedom of Profession, occupation, trade or business

Article 31 of the Constitution of India

Article 31 dealt with Compulsory acquisition of property. It was repealed by the 44th Amendment, 1978 with effect from 20-6-1979.

Article 245 of the Constitution of India

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the Legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State. 

(2) No law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation.

Judgment and Impact of Deep Chand vs State of UP

The Supreme Court in Deep Chand vs State of UP (1959) dealt with the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955. The primary issue in this case revolved around whether the doctrine of eclipse could be applied to the U.P. Act, temporarily rendering it inoperative due to repugnancy but allowing it to be revived later. 

The Court analysed that the doctrine of eclipse is applicable to laws enacted before the enforcement of the Constitution which become inoperative due to their inconsistency with fundamental rights but may be revived once the inconsistency is removed. 

The Supreme Court noted that the Act was passed after the Constitution came into force and it was void from the very beginning and not merely eclipsed. It means that it could not be revived at a later stage. The Court highlighted that a law enacted after the enforcement of the Constitution that conflicts with fundamental rights is void ab initio i.e., void from the beginning.

The Supreme Court in this case held that the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955, was void from the beginning due to its conflict with the central Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Act was void ab initio and had no legal effect and cannot be revived under the doctrine of eclipse. 

The Court also noted that if the State of Uttar Pradesh wished to continue nationalising transport routes then in such a case it would need to pass fresh legislation that complied with the Constitution and did not conflict with central laws.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in this case held that the U.P. Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955, was void ab initio due to its conflict with the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Court ruled that the doctrine of eclipse did not apply. In case if the State of Uttar Pradesh wished to nationalise transport routes it would need to enact fresh legislation in compliance with the Constitution and central laws.