CHINTAMAN RAO AND RAM KRISHNA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1950] 1 S.C.R. 759 · Decided: 08-11-1950 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
759 
CHI NT AMAN RAO 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
RAM KRISHNA 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
[SHRI HARILAL KANIA, C.J., MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, 
MUKHERJEA, DAS and CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.J 
Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of 
Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act (LXIV of 1948), ss. 8, 4-Law 
prohibiting bidi manufacture during agriwltural 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-Constitution 
of India, 1950, Art. 19(1)(g), 19(6). 
The Central ProvinceB and Berar Regulation of Manufacture 
of BidiB (Agricultural Purposes) Act, LXIV of 1948, a law which 
was in force at the commencement of the Constitution of India, 
provided that 
11 the Deputy Commissioner may by notifica.tiou fix 
a. period to be an agricultural season v.rith respect to such villages 
as may be specified therein" and lhat "the Deputy CommiB-
sioner may by general order which Bhall extend to such villageB 
as he may specify, prohibit the manufacture of bidiB during the 
agricultural season.'' The Act provided further that 
11 no person 
reBiding in a village Bpecified in Buch order Bhall during the agri-
cultural season engage himself in the manufacture of bidis, and 
no manufacturer shall during the said season employ any perBon 
for the manufacture of bidis." 
An order waB issued by the 
Deputy CommiBBioner under the proviBions of the Act forbidding 
all persons residing in certain villages from engaging in the 
manufacture of bidis during a particular season. A manufacturer 
of bidiB and an employee in a bidi factory residing in one of the 
Baid villageB applied under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ 
of mandamus alleging that since the Act prohibited the petitionerB 
from exercising their fundamental right to carry on their trade 
or businesB which was guaranteed to them by cl. (1) (g) of Art. 19 
of the ConBtitution, the Act waa void : 
Held, (i) that the object of the Btatute, namely, to provide 
meaBures for the Bupply of adequate labour for agricultural pur-
poBeB in bidi manufacturing areaB of the Province could well 
have been achieved by legislation reBtraining the employment of 
agricultural labour in the manufacture of bidiB dnring the agricul· 
tural seaBon without prohibiting altogether the manufacture of 
bidis. 
As the provisions of the Act had no reaBonable relation 
1950 
Nov.S. 
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1950} 
1!1:50 
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 
Ohintamat1. Rao therefore void. 
'· 
(ii) The law even to the extent that it could be said t~ 
The State of authorize the imposition of restrictions in regard to agricultural 
Madhya 
labour cannot be held to be valid because the language employed 
Pradesh. 
was wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without 
the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action affect· 
ing the right, and 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. 
The phrase "reasonable restriction" connotes that the limi-
tation 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 in-
telligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course 
which reason dictates. 
Legislntion which arbitrarily or exces-
sively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of 
reasonableness and unless it strikes a. proper balance between 
the freedom guaranteed in Art. 19 (!) (g.! and the social control 
permitted by cl. (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 v.i'bether the restric-
tions imposed by the Legislature are reasonable within the 
meaning of Art. 19, cl. \6) '1nd to declare the law void if in its 
opinion the restrictions are no·t reasonable. 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.