Reasonable restriction on vocation failed where slaughter ban was imposed only to appease public sentiment.

A municipal notification cancelling confirmation of bye-laws, to the extent it prohibited slaughter of bulls and bullocks, amounted to a direct ban on the petitioner's vocation and was invalid under Article 19(1)(g). Such a total prohibition can stand only if the State shows it is a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public and that a less drastic measure would not suffice. A ban imposed merely to avoid offending the sentiments of a section of the public, rather than because the activity is inherently harmful or must be prohibited for public interest, is not reasonable. The notification was therefore unconstitutional.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government's notification cancelling confirmation of the bye-laws, insofar as they related to slaughter of bulls and bullocks, was a valid restriction on the petitioner's right to carry on his vocation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Analysis: The notification operated as a direct prohibition on the petitioner's occupation of slaughtering bulls and bullocks within the municipal area. A restriction which amounts to a total prohibition can be sustained only if the State establishes that it is a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public and that a less drastic measure would not suffice. The mere fact that slaughter of animals is regulated through licences and municipal control does not authorise an unrestricted power to prohibit the occupation. A restriction imposed only to avoid offending the sentiments of a section of the people, and not because the activity is inherently harmful or necessary to be banned for public interest, cannot be treated as reasonable.

Conclusion: The notification was unconstitutional and invalid as it infringed the petitioner's fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g).

Ratio Decidendi: A prohibition on the exercise of a fundamental right to carry on a trade or occupation is valid only if it is shown to be a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public; a ban imposed merely to appease the sentiments of a section of the public is not reasonable.

---