Professional practice is not commercial activity: Bombay HC struck down inclusion of medical practitioners in the definition of commercial establishment.

A profession carried on through personal skill and intelligence is distinct from a commercial activity, and a private medical practice does not, by that character alone, become a commercial establishment. Applying that settled distinction, the Bombay HC held that the amendment to Section 2(4) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, could not validly bring medical practitioners within the definition of "commercial establishment". The amendment was therefore unconstitutional to that extent and was struck down.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment to Section 2(4) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, so far as it includes medical practitioners within the definition of "commercial establishment", is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down.

Analysis: The challenge was under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The amended definition had brought legal, medical and other professional consultants within the expression "commercial establishment". The settled legal position, as applied by the Court, was that a profession carried on by personal skill and intelligence is distinct from a commercial activity. A private medical practice does not, by that character alone, become a commercial establishment. The prior decisions relied upon had already treated similar professional activity as outside the scope of commercial establishments, and the same reasoning was applied to doctors.

Conclusion: The amendment, insofar as it included medical practitioners within the definition of "commercial establishment", was held unconstitutional and was struck down. The petition was allowed.

---