Chintaman Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradeshram … on 8 November, 1950
Supreme Court of India
Chintaman Rao vs The State Of Madhya Pradeshram … on 8 November, 1950
Equivalent citations: 1951 AIR 118, 1950 SCR 759
Author: M C Mahajan
Bench: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj), Mahajan, Mehr Chand, Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara
PETITIONER:
CHINTAMAN RAO
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHRAM KRISHNAV.THE STATE OF MADHYA
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
08/11/1950
BENCH:
MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND
BENCH:
MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND
KANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ)
MUKHERJEA, B.K.
DAS, SUDHI RANJAN
AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA
CITATION:
1951 AIR 118 1950 SCR 759
CITATOR INFO :
E&D 1951 SC 318 (25)
D 1952 SC 75 (16)
F 1954 SC 224 (16)
F 1954 SC 229 (6)
R 1956 SC 559 (4)
F 1956 SC 676 (51)
RF 1957 SC 620 (6)
RF 1957 SC 628 (12,16,21)
R 1957 SC 896 (14)
R 1958 SC 578 (168)
R 1959 SC 300 (5)
R 1959 SC1124 (55A)
R 1960 SC 430 (13,16)
R 1960 SC 554 (28)
F 1960 SC 633 (16)
R 1961 SC 448 (9)
R 1962 SC1621 (109)
R 1963 SC 996 (5)
R 1964 SC 416 (11)
R 1970 SC1157 (12)
RF 1974 SC 366 (67)
F 1978 SC 771 (14)
ACT:
Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of
Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act(LXIV of 1948), ss. 3,
4--Law prohibiting bidi manufacture during agricultural
season-- Validity --Restriction of fundamental right to
carry on trade or business-Reasonableness of
restrictions--Test of reasonableness--Jurisdiction of court
to consider whether restrictions are reasonable--Constitu-
tion of India, 1950, Art. 19(1)(g), 19(6).
HEADNOTE:
The Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufac-
ture of Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act, LXIV of 1948, a
law which was in force at the commencement of the Constitu-
tion of India, provided that" the Deputy Commissioner may by
notification fix a period to be an agricultural season with
respect to such villages as may be specified therein" and
that "the Deputy Commissioner may by general order which
shall extend to such villages as he may specify, prohibit
the manufacture of bidis during the agricultural season."
The Act provided further that" no person residing in a,
village specified in such order shall during the agricultur-
al season engage himself in the manufacture of bidis, and no
manufacturer shall during the said season employ any person
for the manufacture of bidis." An order was issued by the
Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Act forbid-
ding all persons residing in certain villages from engaging
in the manufacture of bidis during a. particular season. A
manufacturer of bidis and an employee in a bidi factory
residing in one of the said villages applied under Art. 32
of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus alleging that
since the Act prohibited the petitioners from exercising
their fundamental right to carry on their trade or business
which was guaranteed to them by cl. (1) (g) of Art. 19 of
the Constitution, the Act was void:
Held, (i) that the object of the statute, namely, to
provide measures for the supply of adequate labour for
agricultural purposes in bidi manufacturing areas of the
Province could well have been achieved by legislation re-
straining the employment of agricultural labour in the
manufacture of bidis during the agriculrural season without
prohibiting altogether the manufacture of bidis. As the
provisions of the Act had no reasonable relation
760
to the object in view, the Act was not a law imposing
"reasonable restrictions" within the meaning of cl. (6) of
Art-19 and was therefore void.
(ii) The law even to the extent that it could be said to
authorize the imposition of restrictions in regard to agri-
cultural labour cannot be held to be valid because the
language employed was wide enough to cover restrictions both
within and without the limits of constitutionally permissi-
ble legislative action affecting the right, and so long as
the possibility of its being applied for purposes not sanc-
tioned by the Constitution cannot be ruled out, it must be
held to be wholly void.
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. Legisla-
tion 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
guarnteed in Art. 19 (1) (g) and the social control permit-
ted by el. (6) of Art. 19, it must be held to be wanting in
that quality.
Held also, that the determination by the Legislature
of what constitutes a reasonable restriction is not final
and conclusive. The Supreme Court has power to consider
whether the restrictions imposed by the Legislature are
reasonable within the meaning of Art. 19, cl. (6) and to
declare the law void if in its opinion the restrictions are
not reasonable.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 78 and 79 of 1950.
Application under article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus.
G.N. Joshi, for the petitioners.
S.M. Sikri, for the respondent.
1950. November 8. The judgment 0 the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J.–These two applications for enforcement of the fundamental right guaranteed under article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India have been made by a proprietor and an employee respectively of a bidi manufacturing concern of District Sagar (State of Madhya Pradesh). It is contended that the law in force in the State authorizing it to prohib- it the manufacture of bidis in certain villages including the one wherein the applicants reside is inconsistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution and is conse- quently void.
The Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufac- ture of Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act, LXIV of 1948, was passed on 19th October 1948 and was the law in force in the State at the commencement of the Constitution. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are in these terms;-
” 3. The Deputy Commissioner may by notification fix a period to be an agricultural season with respect to such villages as may be specified therein.
4. (1) The Deputy Commissioner may, by general order which shall extend to such villages as he may specify, prohibit the manufacture of bidis during the agricultural season.
(2) No person residing in a village specified in such order shall during the agricultural season engage himself in the manufacture of bidis, and no manufacturer shall during the said season employ any person for the manufacture of bidis.”
On the 13th June 1950 an order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sagar under the provisions of the Act for- bidding all persons residing in certain villages from engag- ing in the manufacture of bidis. On the 19th June 1950 these two petitions were presented to this Court under article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order as it prejudicially affected the petitioners’ right of freedom of occupation and business. During the pendency of the petitions the season mentioned in the order of the 13th June ran out. A fresh order for the ensuing agricultural season–8th October to 18th November 1950–was issued on 29th September 1950 in the same terms. This order was also challenged in a supplementary petition. Article 19 (1) (g) runs as follows :–
“All citizens shall have the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or busi- ness.”
The article guarantees freedom of occupation and busi- ness. The freedom guaranteed herein is, however, subject to the limitations imposed by clause (6) of article 19. That clause is in these terms :–
“Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restric- tions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub- clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it prescribes or empowers any authority to prescribe, or prevent the State from making any law prescribing or empowering any authority to prescribe, the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any pro- fession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business.”
The point for consideration in these applications is whether the Central Provinces and Berar Act LXIV of 1948 comes within the ambit of this saving clause or is in excess of its provisions. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned Act does not impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the fundamental right in the interests of the general public but totally negatives it. In order to judge the validity of this contention it is neces- sary to examine the impugned Act and some of its provisions. In the preamble to the Act, it is stated that it has been enacted to provide measures for the supply of adequate labour for agricultural purposes in bidi manufacturing areas. Sections 3 and 4 cited above empower the Deputy Commissioner to prohibit the manufacture of bidis during the agricultural season. The contravention of any of these provisions is made punishable by section 7 of the Act, the penalty being imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. It was enacted to help in the grow more food campaign and for the purpose of bring- ing under the plough considerable areas of fallow land.
The question for decision is whether the statute under the guise of protecting public interests arbitrarily interferes with private business and imposes unreasonable and unnecessarily restrictive regulations upon lawful occupation; in other words, whether the total prohibition of carrying on the business of manufacture of bidis within the agricultural season amounts to a reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights mentioned in article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. Unless it is shown that there is a reason- able relation of the provisions of the Act to the purpose in view, the right of freedom of occupation and business cannot be curtailed by it.
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. Legisla- tion 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.
Clause (6) in the concluding paragraph particularizes certain instances of the nature of the restrictions that were in the mind of the constitution-makers and which have the quality of reasonableness. They afford a guide to the interpretation of the clause and illustrate the extent and nature of the restrictions which according to the statute could be imposed on the freedom guaranteed in clause (g). The statute in substance and effect suspends altogether the right mentioned in article 19 (1) (g) during the agri- cultural seasons and such suspension may lead to such dislocation of the industry as to prove its ultimate ruin. The object of the statute is to provide measures for the supply of adequate labour for agricultural purposes in bidi manufacturing areas of the Province and it could well be achieved by legislation restraining the employment of agri- cultural labour in the manufacture of bidis during the agricultural season. Even in point of time a restriction may well have been reasonable if it amounted to a regulation of the hours of work in the busi- ness. Such legislation though it would limit the field for recruiting persons for the manufacture of bidis and regulate the hours of the working of the industry, would not have amounted to a complete stoppage of the business of manufac- ture and might well have been within the ambit of clause (6). The effect of the provisions of the Act, however, has no reasonable relation to the object in view but is so drastic in scope that it goes much in excess of that object. Not only are the provisions of the statute in excess of the requirements of the case but the language employed prohibits a manufacturer of bidis from employing any person m his business, no matter wherever that person may be residing. In other words, a manufacturer of bidis residing in this area cannot import labour from neighbouring places in the district or province or from outside the province. Such a prohibition on the face of it is of an arbitrary nature inasmuch as it has no relation whatsoever to the object which the legislation seeks to achieve and as such cannot be said to be a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right. Further the statute seeks to prohibit all persons residing in the notified villages during the agricultural season from engaging themselves in the manufacture of bidis. It cannot be denied that there would be a number of infirm and disabled persons, a number of children, old women and petty shop keepers residing in these villages who are inca- pable of being used for agricultural labour. All such persons are prohibited by law from engaging themselves in the manufacture of bidis; and are thus being deprived of earning their livelihood. It is a matter of common knowledge that there are certain classes of persons residing in every village who do not engage in agricultural operations. They and their womenfolk and children in their leisure hours supplement their income by engaging themselves in bidi business. There seems no reason for prohibiting them from carrying on this occupation, The statute as it stands, not only compels those who can be engaged in agricultural work from not taking to other avocations, but it also prohibits persons who have no connection or relation to agricultural operations from engaging in the business of bidi making and thus earning their livelihood. These provi- sions of the statute, in our opinion, cannot be said to amount to reasonable restrictions on the right of the appli- cants and that being so, the statute is not in conformity with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. 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 Consti- tution cannot be ruled out, it must be held to be wholly void.
Mr. Sikri for the Government of Madhya Pradesh contends that the legislature of Madhya Pradesh was the proper judge of the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed by the statute, that that legislature alone knew the conditions prevailing in the State and it alone could say what kind of legislation could effectively achieve the end in view and would help in the grow more food campaign and would help for bringing in fallow land under the plough and that this Court sitting at this great distance could not judge by its own yardstick of reason whether the restrictions imposed in the circumstances of the case were reasonable or not. This argument runs counter to the clear provisions of the Con- stitution. The determination by the legislature of what constitutes a reasonable restriction is not final or conclu- sive;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. We are therefore of opinion that the impugned statute does not stand the test of reason- ableness and is therefore void.
The result therefore is that the orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 13th June 1950 and 26th September 1950 are void, inoperative and ineffective. We therefore direct the respondents not to enforce the provisions con- tained in section 4 of the Act against the petitioners in any manner whatsoever. The petitioners will have their costs of these proceedings in the two petitions.
Petitions allowed.
Agent for the petitioners in Nos. 78 and 79: Rajinder Narain.
Agent for the respondent in Nos. 78 and 79:
P.A. Mehta.