TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Act Prohibiting Bidi Manufacturing Declared Void Under Article 19: Court Rules Against Restrictions</h1> <h3>CHINTAMANRAO Versus STATE OF MP.</h3> The Court held that the Central Provinces and Berar Act LXIV of 1948, prohibiting bidi manufacturing in certain villages, violated the fundamental right ... - 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
