Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab on 12 April, 1955 – Case Summary
The case of Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. vs The State Of Punjab on 12 April, 1955 was brought before the court through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by six persons who claimed to carry on the business of preparing, printing, publishing, and selling textbooks. They alleged that the Government of Punjab had created a monopoly by nationalizing textbooks, which violated their Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on trade without legislative sanction.
The court examined the powers and functions of the executive and its relationship with the legislature. It found that the executive’s powers and functions change over time and do not always require legislative approval. The court also accepted a less rigid definition of separation of powers, stating that the three branches of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – are not always separate and distinct, and there is often an overlapping of functions.
The court clarified that the executive authority of the state extends to matters upon which the state legislature can legislate. Therefore, the government of Punjab did not violate the Fundamental Rights of the petitioners mentioned under Article 19(1)(g) of carrying on trade without legislative sanction.
The court also noted that the power of the judiciary to review the actions of the executive is an essential feature of the Constitution. However, it is not the role of the judiciary to interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless they violate the Constitution.
Overall, the case of Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. vs The State Of Punjab on 12 April, 1955 established important principles regarding the powers and functions of the executive, separation of powers, and the role of the judiciary in reviewing the actions of the executive. It clarified that the executive’s powers and functions change over time and do not always require legislative approval, and that the executive authority of the state extends to matters upon which the state legislature can legislate. The case also established that the judiciary has the power to review the actions of the executive, but it should not interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless they violate the Constitution.