Dormant pre-Constitution law can revive after constitutional amendment removes the inconsistency with fundamental rights.

A pre-Constitution law that was valid when enacted but became void only to the extent of its inconsistency with fundamental rights was treated as dormant rather than obliterated. Once Article 19(6) was amended to permit State monopoly, the law could operate again against citizens, so the Article 19(1)(g) objection failed. The article also notes that the Article 31 challenge did not survive the Fourth Amendment, because the amended provision applied to the petitions filed after its commencement. The underlying principle stated is that a law void only for constitutional inconsistency may revive when the inconsistency is removed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a pre-Constitution law that became void to the extent of its inconsistency with Article 19(1)(g) could revive and operate against citizens after the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 amended Article 19(6). (ii) Whether the impugned law was void under Article 31(2) and whether that objection survived the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955.

Issue (i): Whether a pre-Constitution law that became void to the extent of its inconsistency with Article 19(1)(g) could revive and operate against citizens after the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 amended Article 19(6).

Analysis: The existing law was valid when enacted, but after the Constitution it became void to the extent that it conflicted with the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) as then limited by the unamended Article 19(6). The Court held that such invalidity was not total annihilation of the law; it remained in a dormant state as against citizens. Once Article 19(6) was amended to permit State monopoly, the constitutional objection disappeared and the law became enforceable again against citizens as well as non-citizens.

Conclusion: The law revived after the 1951 constitutional amendment and the challenge under Article 19(1)(g) failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned law was void under Article 31(2) and whether that objection survived the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955.

Analysis: The law had also been attacked as involving deprivation of property, but the constitutional amendment to Article 31 substituted a narrower acquisition requirement and removed the earlier difficulty. As the writ petitions were filed after the Fourth Amendment had come into force, the Court held that the amended Article 31 protected the impugned law from challenge on that ground. The attempt to raise a pre-Constitution challenge under section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935 was not entertained.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 31 failed.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional objections were rejected, and the petitions were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-Constitution law that became void only to the extent of its inconsistency with fundamental rights is not obliterated; it may revive and operate once the constitutional inconsistency is removed by amendment.

---