Supreme Court declares pre-emption laws based on vicinage unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court (SC) considered the constitutional validity of pre-emption laws based on vicinage under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 13 of the Constitution. The SC held that such laws imposed unreasonable restrictions on property rights and were void, as they did not benefit the general public. The Court rejected the argument that customs were exempt from constitutional scrutiny and concluded that the law of pre-emption based on vicinage was unconstitutional. The SC allowed the appeal, with each party bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the law of pre-emption based on vicinage under the Constitution.
2. Interpretation of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 13 of the Constitution in relation to pre-emption laws.
3. Application of fundamental rights to customary laws of pre-emption.

Detailed Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad concerning a suit for pre-emption filed by the first respondent against the appellants. The case revolved around a sale of property and a claim for pre-emption based on vicinage. The lower courts had differed in their decisions, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court (SC). The High Court had certified the case for appeal, which prompted the SC to consider the constitutional validity of pre-emption laws based on vicinage under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 13 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench of the High Court had held that the law of pre-emption based on vicinage was saved by clause (5) of Art. 19 and was not void under Art. 13 of the Constitution. However, the SC referred to a previous judgment in Bhau Ram v. B. Baijnath Singh, where it was held that pre-emption laws imposed unreasonable restrictions on property rights guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(f) and were void. The SC noted that such laws placed restrictions on both the vendor and the vendee without benefiting the general public, as stated in Art. 15 of the Constitution.

The respondent's counsel attempted to distinguish the present case from the precedent by arguing that the earlier case dealt with legislative measures, while the current case involved customary law. The counsel referred to historical origins of pre-emption laws in India and contended that Art. 14 and 15 did not apply to customs or contracts. However, the SC emphasized that the ruling in Bhau Ram's case applied to both statutory and customary laws of pre-emption based on vicinage.

The SC analyzed the definition of "laws in force" under Art. 13 of the Constitution and concluded that customs or usages having the force of law were included in the ambit of fundamental rights. The SC rejected the argument that customs were not affected by Art. 19(1)(f) and held that the law of pre-emption based on vicinage was void under the Constitution. Consequently, the SC allowed the appeal, with parties bearing their costs throughout the proceedings.

---