Intra-State trade freedom and severability: restrictions needed presidential sanction, and the entire provision failed as inseverable.

Articles 301 and 304(b) were treated as applying to trade and transport within a State, because the phrase "with or within a State" covers movement between different parts of the same State as well as inter-State trade. The Court also applied the severability test and found Section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950 to be a single inseparable scheme, so the valid portion could not survive after the constitutional defect was identified. The provision therefore required presidential sanction and, lacking it, was void in its entirety and unenforceable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse under Article 301 and the power of a State to impose restrictions under Article 304(b) extend to trade and transport within the State; (ii) whether Section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950 could be sustained in part by severing the invalid portion.

Issue (i): Whether the freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse under Article 301 and the power of a State to impose restrictions under Article 304(b) extend to trade and transport within the State.

Analysis: Article 301 declares freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India, and Article 304(b) authorises a State to impose reasonable restrictions on such freedom with or within the State, subject to the proviso requiring previous presidential sanction for the relevant Bill or amendment. The expression "with or within a State" was treated as wide enough to cover trade between different parts of the same State, not merely inter-State movement.

Conclusion: The constitutional scheme of Articles 301 and 304 applies to intra-State trade and transport as well as to inter-State trade.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act, 1950 could be sustained in part by severing the invalid portion.

Analysis: The test of severability is whether the valid part is independent, complete in itself, and capable of being executed according to legislative intention without the invalid part. On that test, Section 3 was held to form a single scheme, so that the invalid and valid parts were inseparably connected and the whole provision could not stand once the constitutional defect was found.

Conclusion: Section 3 could not be partly saved and was void in its entirety for want of the necessary presidential sanction.

Final Conclusion: The impugned statutory provision was declared unconstitutional and unenforceable, and the accused were discharged.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a State law imposing restrictions on trade or commerce within the State falls within Article 304(b), presidential sanction is mandatory, and if the invalid part of the provision is inseparable from the rest, the entire provision must fail.

---