CHINTAMAN RAO V. STATE OF M.P. AIR 1951 SC 118

CHINTAMAN RAO V. STATE OF M.P.

AIR 1951 SC 118

 

FACTS

On the 13th June 1950 an order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Sagar under the provisions of the Act for- bidding all persons residing in certain villages from engag- ing in the manufacture of bidis. On the 19th June 1950 these two petitions were presented to this Court under article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order as it prejudicially affected the petitioners' right of freedom of occupation and business. During the pendency of the petitions the season mentioned in the order of the 13th June ran out. A fresh order for the ensuing agricultural season--8th October to 18th November 1950--was issued on 29th September 1950 in the same terms. This order was also challenged in a supplementary petition.

 

ISSUE

The issue pertaining to the current case reflects whether the Central Provinces and Berar Act LXIV of 1948 comes within the ambit of this saving clause or is in excess of its provisions.

 

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. The current judgement descriptively explained the concept of unreasonable restrictions. It showed that one of its vital principles suggests that the restrictive law should strike a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(I)(g) and the social control permitted by clause (6) of Article 19. The restriction must not be of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of the public.
2. It further observed that “the phrase "reasonable restriction" connotes that 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. The word "reasonable" implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legisla- tion which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless 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, it must be held to be wanting in that quality.”
3. This hon'ble court further observed that the burden to show whether the restriction is reasonable lies entirely on the state. Such restrictions are mentioned in article 19(1)(a) to (g) and the courts are entitled to consider the proportionality of such restrictions ensuring that they needn’t be arbitrary or excessive. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invades fundamental rights cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless a proper balance is struck between the fundamental rights and its restrictions.
4. This hon'ble court further examined that the constitutionality of Madhya Pradesh Act which empowered the government to prohibit all persons residing in certain areas from engaging in the manufacture of bidis was challenged. The impugned law had been passed with the object of providing the supply of adequate labour for agricultural purposes in bidi manufacturing areas of the province. It also mentioned that “it goes much in excess of that object.... The statute as it stands, not only compels those who can be engaged in agriculture work from not taking to other avocations, but it also prohibits persons who have no connection or relation to agricultural operations from engaging in the business of bidi making and thus earning their livelihood." 
5. The court also observed that the object of the Act was to keep sufficient labour supply for agricultural purposes and could well be achieved by restraining the employment of agricultural labour in the manufacture of bidis during the agricultural season.
6. It was therefore held that the impugned act was void as it went far beyond the purpose of the act.