https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277252 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. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 1955 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:17:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277252 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 29 Sep 1955 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277252