In which case did the Supreme Court hold that a Fundamental Right cannot be waived by the person who holds it?
- A.Basheshar Nath versus Commissioner of Income Tax, 1959
- B.Deep Chand versus State of Uttar Pradesh, 1959
- C.State of Bombay versus F. N. Balsara, 1951
- D.Calcutta Gas Company versus State of West Bengal, 1962
Correct answer
Explanation
The correct answer is A, Basheshar Nath versus Commissioner of Income Tax, 1959. The petitioner had settled his tax liability under a provision later found to violate Article 14, and it was argued that by agreeing to the settlement he had waived his right to equality. The Court rejected the argument: Fundamental Rights are not conferred for the private benefit of individuals alone but are a matter of public policy, so a citizen cannot contract out of them. Option B is wrong because Deep Chand, 1959, dealt with post-Constitution laws being void from birth, which limits the doctrine of eclipse. Option C is wrong because Balsara, 1951, is a pith and substance case on the Bombay Prohibition Act. Option D is wrong because the Calcutta Gas Company case, 1962, is the standard authority on harmonious construction of overlapping entries in the Seventh Schedule.
Read the full article: Constitutional Doctrines: Cases, Articles and Exam Facts
Practice Questions
View allThe doctrine of eclipse was applied by the Supreme Court in which of the following cases?
- A.A. K. Gopalan versus State of Madras
- B.Bhikaji Narain Dhakras versus State of Madhya Pradesh
- C.K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo versus State of Orissa
- D.Basheshar Nath versus Commissioner of Income Tax
Show answer
In that case a 1947 motor vehicles law of Central Provinces and Berar had become unenforceable because it clashed with the freedom of trade under Article 19(1)(g).
Read the full explanation →The doctrine of pith and substance is applied by courts mainly to decide questions relating to which of the following?
- A.Amendment of the Constitution
- B.Distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the States
- C.Enforcement of Fundamental Rights by writs
- D.Appointment of judges of the High Courts
Show answer
Article 246 read with the Seventh Schedule gives Parliament and the State Legislatures separate fields of law making, but subjects overlap in practice, so a court must find the true nature and character of the law, its pith and substance, and ignore incidental encroachment on the other list.
Read the full explanation →The maxim that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly expresses which doctrine?
- A.Doctrine of territorial nexus
- B.Doctrine of colourable legislation
- C.Doctrine of eclipse
- D.Doctrine of waiver
Show answer
The doctrine means that a legislature cannot do by an indirect route what the Constitution forbids it to do directly; if it has no competence over a subject, no clever drafting can give it that competence.
Read the full explanation →The doctrine of territorial nexus is drawn from which provision of the Constitution?
- A.Article 13(1)
- B.Article 245(2)
- C.Article 254(2)
- D.Article 368
Show answer
That clause says that no law made by Parliament shall be deemed invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation, and the courts have built on it the rule that a State law too may apply to an object or person outside the State if there is a…
Read the full explanation →The doctrine of pith and substance was applied by the Privy Council in which of the following cases?
- A.Shankari Prasad versus Union of India
- B.Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee versus Bank of Commerce, Khulna
- C.Golaknath versus State of Punjab
- D.Kesavananda Bharati versus State of Kerala
Show answer
The Bengal Money Lenders Act of 1940 limited the interest and the amount recoverable by money lenders, a provincial subject, but it also affected promissory notes, which belonged to the central list.
Read the full explanation →