Reasonable restrictions on trade invalid where a blanket bidi manufacture ban was wider than necessary for the stated public purpose.

A restriction on bidi manufacture during the agricultural season was found unconstitutional because it lacked a reasonable nexus with the object of securing labour for agriculture. The Court held that the State could have adopted narrower measures, such as regulating agricultural labour or fixing working hours, instead of imposing a blanket prohibition that barred manufacture by all persons in notified villages, including those incapable of agricultural work. The measure was therefore excessive, arbitrary, and more drastic than necessary, and it could not be saved as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6). The impugned provisions were struck down to the extent challenged as infringing Article 19(1)(g).

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned provisions, which empowered the prohibition of bidi manufacture during the agricultural season, imposed reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, or whether they impermissibly curtailed the freedom to carry on occupation, trade or business under Article 19(1)(g).

Analysis: The constitutional test was whether the restriction had a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved and whether it was arbitrary, excessive, or more drastic than required. The object of securing labour for agricultural purposes could have been achieved by a narrower measure, such as regulating the employment of agricultural labour or fixing hours of work, rather than by a broad prohibition that stopped bidi manufacture altogether during the season. The provisions went beyond the stated purpose because they barred manufacturers from employing any person, wherever residing, and also prohibited all residents of notified villages, including persons incapable of agricultural labour, from engaging in bidi manufacture. The restriction therefore lacked the necessary nexus with the legislative object and operated in a manner that was too wide to be regarded as reasonable.

Conclusion: The restriction was held to be unreasonable and the impugned Act, to the extent challenged, was void for infringing Article 19(1)(g) and not being saved by Article 19(6). The challenge succeeded in favour of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: A restriction on the freedom to carry on occupation, trade or business is valid only if it is reasonable, non-arbitrary, and proportionate to the public purpose sought to be achieved; a measure that imposes a substantially wider prohibition than necessary is unconstitutional.

---