1950 (11) TMI 15 - SC - Indian Laws

Statute banning bidi manufacture in villages struck down as unreasonable violation of Article 19(1)(g) livelihood freedom

SC held that the statute prohibiting manufacture of bidis in specified villages violated the fundamental right under art. 19(1)(g) as an unreasonable ... Prohibition on manufacture of bidis in certain villages - Enforcement of the fundamental right guaranteed under article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India - phrase 'reasonable restriction' - validity of the order as it prejudicially affected the petitioner's right of freedom of occupation and business - HELD THAT:- 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. 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 provisions of the statute, in our opinion, cannot be said to amount to reasonable restrictions on the right of the applicants 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 Constitution cannot be ruled out, it must be held to be wholly void. 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 reasonableness 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. Petitions allowed. Issues:Enforcement of fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) challenged due to prohibition on bidi manufacturing in certain villages. Validity of Central Provinces and Berar Act LXIV of 1948 under Article 19(6) in question.Analysis:The judgment involved two applications challenging the prohibition on bidi manufacturing in certain villages, contending it violated the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Central Provinces and Berar Act LXIV of 1948 empowered the Deputy Commissioner to prohibit bidi manufacturing during the agricultural season. The petitioners argued that the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions, negatively impacting their right to business and occupation. The key issue was whether the Act fell within the permissible restrictions under Article 19(6) or exceeded its provisions.The Court examined the Act's provisions and purpose, which aimed at ensuring labor supply for agricultural purposes in bidi manufacturing areas. The petitioners argued that the Act unreasonably interfered with private business and imposed excessive regulations on lawful occupation. The Court emphasized that restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary, maintaining a balance between freedom of occupation and social control permitted by Article 19(6).The judgment discussed the concept of 'reasonable restriction' and highlighted that the Act's provisions suspending the right to business during agricultural seasons were excessive and arbitrary. The Act's language prohibiting employment of any person in bidi manufacturing, regardless of residence, was deemed unreasonable. It was noted that the Act deprived various individuals, including disabled persons and children, of their livelihood without a valid reason, making the restrictions unreasonable.The Court rejected the argument that the legislature alone could determine the reasonableness of restrictions, emphasizing its role in safeguarding fundamental rights. It concluded that the Act failed the test of reasonableness and was therefore void. The orders prohibiting bidi manufacturing were declared void, and the respondents were directed not to enforce the Act against the petitioners. The petitioners were awarded costs of the proceedings.In summary, the judgment analyzed the validity of the Central Provinces and Berar Act LXIV of 1948 in light of Article 19(1)(g) and 19(6) of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights. The Court held that the Act's provisions were unreasonable and arbitrary, leading to its declaration as void and ineffective in prohibiting bidi manufacturing in certain villages.