CHINTAMAN RAO V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. AIR 1951 SC 118:1950 SCR 759

CHINTAMAN RAO V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. AIR 1951 SC 118:1950 SCR 759

FACTS:

The Madhya Pradesh government had passed the central province of Berar Regulation of Manufacture of Bidis (Agricultural purpose) Act, 1948 under which the deputy commissioner, by an order prohibited the manufacture of bidis in some villages which includes the petitioner’s village which is inconsistent with the provisions of part III of the constitution and is consequently void.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the Central provinces and Berar Act of 1948 comes within the ambit of saving clause or is in excess of its provisions?
2. Whether the total prohibition on carrying on the business of manufacture of bidis within the agricultural season amounts to reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights mentioned in Article 19 (1)(g) of the constitution?

 

OBSERVATION:

• The phrase “ reasonable restriction” connotes the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public.

Thus it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19(1) (g) and the social control permitted by clause (6) of Article 19.

• The statute in substance and effect suspends altogether the right mentioned in Article 19(1)(g) during the agricultural seasons and such suspension may lead to such dislocation of industry as to prove its ultimate ruin.
• Though the object of the statute is to provide measures for the supply of adequate labour for agricultural purposes in bidi manufacturing areas and it could well be achieved by legislation restraining the employment in manufacturing of bidis during agricultural season, a restriction may be reasonable if it amounted to a regulation of the hours of work in the business.
• The effect of the provisions of the Act, however, has no reasonable relation to the object in view but is so drastic in scope that it goes much in excess of that object. Thus such a prohibition on the face of it is of an arbitrary nature and cannot be said to be a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right.
• Further, as the statute seeks to prohibit all persons residing in Village from engaging themselves in the manufacture of bidis,There would be a number of children , old women and petty shopkeepers residing in these villages who are incapable of being used for agricultural labour. thus All such persons were deprived of earning their livelihood.
• Thus the statute not only compels those who can be engaged in agricultural work, but it also prohibits persons who have no connection to agricultural operations from engaging in the business of bidi making and thus earning their livelihood.

 

DECISION:

• The effect of the provisions of the Act, however,has no reasonable relation to the object in view but is so drastic in scope that it goes much in excess of that object.
• The provisions of the statute, cannot be said to amount to reasonable restrictions on the right of the applicants and that being so, the statute is not in conformity with the provisions of part III of the constitution. So long as the possibility of its being applied for the purposes sanctioned by the constitution cannot be ruled out, it must be held to be wholly void.
• The determination by the legislature of what constitutes a reasonable restriction is not final or conclusive, it is subject to the supervision by this Court. The impugned statue does not stand the test of reasonableness and is therefore void.