Annexure-V- Cover Page for Academic Tasks

Course Code: LAW 333 Course Title: Interpretation of statutes and legislative drafting

Course Instructor: Amanpriya Singh Section – L1902

Academic Task No.- 1 Academic Task Title: Assignment

Date of Allotment: 06 November, 2021 Date of submission: 22 November, 2021

Student’s Name: Aman Kathuria Student’s Reg. no: 11915048

Evaluation Parameters: (Parameters on which student is to be evaluated- To be mentioned by students as

specified at the time of assigning the task by the instructor)

Learning Outcomes: (Student to write briefly about learnings obtained from the academic tasks)

Evaluator’s comments (For Instructor’s use only)

General Suggestions Best part

Observation for improvement of assignment

Declaration:
I declare that this Assignment is my individual work. I have not copied it from any
other student’s work or from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made
explicitly in the text, nor has any part been written for me by any other person.

Student’s Signature:

Marks Obtained: Maximum Marks: 30

Critical analysis of Deep Chand vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors

Appellants: Deep Chand

Respondents: The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Decided On: 15 January, 1959

Judges/Coram:
Sudhi Ranjan Das, C.J., B.P. Sinha, K. Subba Rao, K.N. Wanchoo and N.H.
Bhagwati, JJ.

Equivalent Citation: AIR 1959 SC 648

Explanation of laws used in this case:

The Constitution of India:

 Articles 13

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution describes the means for judicial review. It
enjoins a duty on the Indian State to respect and implement the fundamental
right. And at the same time, it confers a power on the courts to declare a law or
an act void if it infringes the fundamental rights

 Article 19 (1)

Freedom of Speech and Expression: Article 19 of the Constitution provides

freedom of speech which is the right to express one's opinion freely without any
fear through oral/written/electronic/broadcasting/press. Freedom of expression
includes Freedom of Press. It covers the blogs and websites too.

 Article 31

Article 31 of the Constitution not only guarantees the right of private ownership
but also the right to enjoy and dispose of property free from restrictions other
than reasonable restriction. The article states that no person shall be deprived of
his/her property, except by authority of law. It is also mentioned that
compensation would be paid to a person whose property has been taken for
public purposes.

 Article 32

Article 32 deals with the 'Right to Constitutional Remedies', or affirms the right
to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution.

 Article 37

Article 37 of the Constitution declares that the DPSP “shall not be enforceable
by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental
in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the state to apply
these principles in making laws.”

 Article 132

An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final
order of a High Court in a State, whether in a civil, criminal or other
proceeding, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution.

 Article 133

In accordance with the Article 133 of the Constitution of India, if there is any
substantial question of law or it is wrongly decided and it needs to be decided
by the Court. Upon such cases, the High Court grants the certificate to make
appeals to the Supreme Court.

 Article 245

Article 245 provides, inter alia, that (subject to the provisions of the
Constitution). "(i) Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the
territory of India and (ii) the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole
or any part of the State.

 Article 246

Article 246 of the Constitution demarcated the powers of the Union and the
State by classifying their powers into 3 lists, namely Union List, State List and
the Concurrent List. The constitution of India has provided for the division of
powers between the central and the state governments.

 Article 254

According to Article 254(1), if any provision of a state law is repugnant to a

provision in a law made by the Parliament, which the Parliament is competent
to enact, or with any existing law regarding any matter in the Concurrent List,
then the Parliamentary law would prevail over the State law.

Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955:

Sections 3, 4, 5, 8 and 11 (5)

General Clauses Act, 1897:

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act saves, inter alia, rights, privileges,
obligations or liabilities acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so
repealed13 and even the penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of
any offence committed against any enactment so repealed

Facts

 The petitioners were carrying on business as stage carriage operators on

different routes in Uttar Pradesh under valid permits issued under the
Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 along with buses owned by Government.
  However, the U.P. Legislature passed Uttar Pradesh Transport Service
(Development) Act, 1955- under Section 3 Government issued a
notification nationalizing routes.

 The appellants received notices under Section 5 of the U.P. Act

requesting them to file objections, if any. After the objections were
received, they were notified that the same would be heard by a Board.

 The objections filed by all the operators other than those of the Agra
region were heard and the inquiry in regard to the Agra region was
adjourned however the operators of the Agra region failed to appear
again.

 A notification was issued under section 8 of the Act was published in the
U.P. Gazette. Additionally, the Secretary to the Regional Transport
Authority, Agra, sent an order alleged to have been issued by the
Transport Commissioner to the operators of the Agra region barring them
from operating their stage carriages on the specified routes and also
notifying them that their permits would be transferred to other routes.

Issue

 Whether the provisions of Part III of the Constitution enshrining the

fundamental rights are mere checks or limitations on the legislative
competency conferred on Parliament and the State Legislatures by Arts.
245 and 246 read with the relevant entries in the Lists in the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution or are in integral part of the provisions
defining, prescribing and conferring the legislative competency itself?

 Whether the doctrine of eclipse is applicable only to pre-Constitution

laws or can apply also to any post-Constitution law which falls under Art.
13(2) of the Constitution?
Contentions by Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

 The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 passed by the Parliament is

wholly repugnant to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service
(Development) Act, 1955 and for that reason the latter becomes void
under the provisions of Article 254(1) of the Indian Constitution; with the
result that, at the present time, there exists no valid law wherein under the
Government can exclude the appellants from exercising their fundamental
right under the Constitution viz. to carry on their business of motor
transport.

 The scheme framed under the Act, being one made to operate in future
and from day-to-day, is an instrument within the meaning of section 68B
of the impugned Act, and as a result the provisions of the impugned Act
would prevail over those of the scheme, and after the impugned Act came
into force – it would have no operative force.

 Even if the impugned Act was valid and continued to be in force in regard
to the scheme framed thereunder, it would offend the provisions of Art.
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.

Respondent’s Arguments

 On behalf of the State, it was argued that the Constitution (First

Amendment) Act, 1951, and the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act,
1955, had the effect of removing the inconsistency and, therefore, the
Amendment Act III of 1948 became operative again. Moreover, 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.

 The learned Advocate General relied upon certain precedents in support

of his contention that the word “void’’ in Arts. 13(1) and 13(2) means
only “unenforceable” against persons claiming fundamental rights, and
the law continues to be in the statute book irrespective of the fact that it
was made in infringement of the Fundamental Rights.

Ratio Decidendi

In the present matter the Apex Court held the following:

 If any law is made after the 25th January, 1950, which is repugnant to the
Constitution, then the statute is void since its very birth and anything
done under it is also void and illegal in India, as is followed in America,
and even convictions made under such an unconstitutional law will have
to be set aside by resort to exercise of powers given to this court by the
Constitution.

 While comparing the provisions of the U.P. Act and the amending Act it
becomes clear that both the Acts are envisioned to operate in respect of
the same subject matter in same field. Nevertheless, the unamended
Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 did not make any provision for
nationalization of transport services whereas the State introduced
amendments to implement scheme of nationalization of road transport.

 In the result, all the appeals are dismissed with one set of costs to the
State of Uttar Pradesh.

Rule of Law

The provision of the law which was under scrutiny by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India was the Doctrine of Eclipse. It was clarified that any post
constitutional law infringing fundamental rights are void ab initio and the
doctrine of eclipse cannot apply.

Conclusion

In Conclusion it could be said that in this case the Supreme Court through its
judgement has laid down a great requirement under the law that there exists a
clear distinction between the two clauses of Article 13 of the Indian
Constitution. Under clause (1) a pre-Constitutional law subsists except to the
extent of its inconsistency with the provisions of Part III, whereas as per clause
(2), no post-Constitutional law can be made contravening the provisions of Part
III and therefore the law to that extent, though made, is a nullity from its
inception.