Law Maker

Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Supreme Court of India · 8 November 1950 · 5 judges · 1951 AIR 118; 1950 SCR 759

The Court held void the Central Provinces and Berar law allowing a total ban on bidi manufacture during the agricultural season, because the prohibition was not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) on the right in Article 19(1)(g).

Facts

The Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act, 1948, was in force when the Constitution began. Sections 3 and 4 let the Deputy Commissioner fix an agricultural season for specified villages and prohibit the manufacture of bidis in them during that season; no resident could make bidis and no manufacturer could employ anyone to make them. The stated object was to secure adequate labour for agriculture. On 13 June 1950 the Deputy Commissioner of Sagar issued such an order for certain villages, and a fresh order was issued for the next season. A proprietor and an employee of a bidi concern in District Sagar petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32, claiming that the Act violated their right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on an occupation, trade or business.

Questions before the Court

  1. Does a law permitting a total prohibition of bidi manufacture during the agricultural season impose reasonable restrictions within Article 19(6) on the right in Article 19(1)(g)?
  2. Is the legislature's own view of what is a reasonable restriction final, or can the Court examine it?

What the Court held

  • A reasonable restriction must not be arbitrary or excessive, beyond what the public interest requires. Legislation that arbitrarily or excessively invades the right, and does not strike a proper balance between the freedom in Article 19(1)(g) and the social control permitted by Article 19(6), lacks reasonableness.
  • The Act in effect suspended the right altogether during the agricultural season. Its object could have been met by restraining the employment of agricultural labour in bidi making; instead it barred manufacturers from employing anyone, wherever resident, and barred residents unfit for farm work. It had no reasonable relation to its object.
  • Since the Act's language was wide enough to cover restrictions both within and outside constitutionally permissible limits, and could be applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution, it was wholly void, even as far as it could be said to restrict agricultural labour.
  • The legislature's determination of what is a reasonable restriction is not final or conclusive; it is subject to the supervision of the Court, which may set aside an Act violating the guaranteed freedoms.
  • The Deputy Commissioner's orders were declared void, the respondents were directed not to enforce Section 4 against the petitioners, and the petitions were allowed with costs.

Why it matters

The judgment states the meaning of 'reasonable restriction' in Article 19: a restriction must not be arbitrary or excessive and must strike a proper balance between the freedom and social control. It holds that a law suspending a business altogether can fail this test where a narrower measure would serve the object, that an over-wide law capable of unconstitutional application is wholly void, and that the reasonableness of restrictions is for the Court to decide, not the legislature.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“The phrase "reasonable restriction" connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public. The word "reasonable" implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in article 19 (1) (g) and the social control permitted by clause (6) of article 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality.”
Mahajan, J.Page 4 of the judgment
“The law even to the extent that it could be said to authorize the imposition of restrictions in regard to agricultural labour cannot be held valid because the language employed is wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action affecting the right. So long as the possibility of its being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution cannot be ruled out, it must be held to be wholly void.”
Mahajan, J.Page 5 of the judgment
“The determination by the legislature of what constitutes a reasonable restriction is not final or conclusive;it is subject to the supervision by this Court. In the matter of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court watches and guards the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and in exercising its functions it has the power to set aside an Act of the Legislature if it is in violation of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Mahajan, J.Page 6 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Related judgments

Case and bench

Parties
Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Case
Petitions Nos. 78 and 79 of 1950 (Original Jurisdiction)
Decided
8 November 1950
Bench
Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Kania, Hiralal J. (CJ), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara
Opinions
Unanimous. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Mahajan, J.