The case was afresh case for the Indian Judiciary that dealt with the ample of laws left behind the British Empire and did not concede with the spirit of the Indian Constitution. It was on the basis of this judgement that the Doctrine of Eclipse came into the view.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The provincial government was authorised in taking over the entire operation of road transport to compete or create monopoly by taking over but with the commencement of constitution it was in conflict with the Article19(1)(g) but with the First Amendment19(6) came into existence that gave the exact power to the state government . The question over the validity of such laws was raised.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
The case focused on the laws that were enacted before the existence of the Constitution and are known by the term Pre-Constitutional and were dormant on the ground that they were invalid on the grounds of the Constitution and until they were taken up for scrutiny by the judiciary or made valid through an amendment in the constitution.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The court held that Article13 (1) rendered an act void only up to the inconsistency and if that inconsistency was removed then the act is valid. Any law is thus considered dormant but that dead thus it was within the shadow of the Fundamental Rights and therefore, the doctrine of eclipse was coined.