RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR VS STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1955 SC 549

 RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR VS STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1955 SC 549

 

FACTS

In this case, the petitioner, along with five others, operated a business involved in the preparation, printing, and publication of textbooks for various school-level classes, particularly primary and secondary level books in the State of Punjab, operating under the name "Uttar Chand Kapur and Sons." This business was conducted in accordance with their constitutional right to engage in trade and commerce. The Education Department of the State government of Punjab formulated a policy aimed at nationalizing the trade, publication, and printing of textbooks, which was communicated to businessmen through various notifications. In response, the petitioners filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, alleging that the nationalization of textbook publications and printing would infringe upon their right to freedom of trade and business as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution. They argued that this policy lacked proper legislative backing and that the notifications did not comply with the requirements of Article 19(6), rendering the policy invalid and unconstitutional. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to annul the said notifications.

 

ISSUES:

• Whether the notifications in question violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution.
• Whether legislative authorization was required for such a policy, and if so, whether it needed to conform to the provisions of Article 19(6).

 

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

Firstly, the petitioners argued that the State government of Punjab lacked legal authority, through legislation, to engage in any trade or business activity. They contended that the government's policy to establish a monopoly in the trade and business of publishing and printing books was illegal and beyond its jurisdiction.

Secondly, the petitioners contended that if the government intended to establish a monopoly, such a policy should only be considered after enacting legislation to that effect, and it should also comply with the requirements stipulated in Article 19(6) of the Indian Constitution. They argued that the State government should not be allowed to deprive their interests and rights unless a law had been enacted for this purpose and the obligation to provide compensation, as required under Article 31 of the Indian Constitution, had been fulfilled.

 

JUDGMENT:

• The court rejected the petitioners' argument that there was a violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g).
• The court observed that in the case of school books, it is the schools that should determine the type of books to be used, and publishers do not have the right to insist that students or schools accept their books as textbooks.
• It noted that in the business realm, if a trader is successful in the market, their goods will find buyers, but if they face losses, they cannot claim that their fundamental right to have customers has been violated.
• The court concluded that such risks and uncertainties are inherent in every business, and there is no fundamental right at stake in this case.
• The court underscored the significance of Articles 73 and 162 of the Indian Constitution, which deal with executive powers and the extent to which the powers of Parliament and the states are executed. It observed that a modern state is expected to engage in activities necessary for the welfare of its citizens.
• The court further noted that for additional powers beyond those provided to the executive by law, special legislation is required to encroach upon privacy rights. In this context, the need for special legislation to curtail such rights was affirmed.
• Given that the question of whether there was a violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights was dismissed, the court deemed it immaterial to determine whether the government could establish a monopoly without legislation under Article 19(6) of the constitution.
• Consequently, the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India.