Case analysis

Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. v. State of Punjab

(1955)

Introduction:

No right is absolute in nature. This does not only apply to the citizens of the country but also to
the governing body such as administrative agencies and governments as well. This is important
to ensure that there is no arbitrariness during the administration of justice. Similarly, article 19
(1) (g) of the Indian Constitution shall also be subject to restrictions under 19(2). And it is also
provided that whenever there is a question of public interests and for the welfare of the people
arises, the private rights are brought back little while interpreting the matter concerned. This
article will look into one such issue where the private right was said to have been infringed by
the government. But, the court found otherwise and dismissed the case. Let us look at the brief
on Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur & Ors v. State of Punjab (1955).

Facts of the case:

In this case, the petitioner, along with five others, was engaged in the business of preparing,
printing, and publications of textbooks for various school level classes, especially the primary
and secondary level books in the State of Punjab under the name of “Uttar Chand Kapur and
Sons”. It is done as per their right to carry out their own business and trade and is legally valid. It
was reported that the Education Department under the State government of Punjab had come up
with a policy on nationalizing this business of trading, publishing and printing the textbooks, and
the same was notified through different notifications for this purpose to businessmen. Knowing
this, the petitioners have filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution alleging that
the act of nationalizing the publications and printings of books would interfere with their right to
freedom of trade and business under Article 19(1) (g) of the constitution and had practically
driven out them from this business. It was urged that such a restriction has been laid on them
without any proper legislative backings for such a policy, and mere notifications not conforming
to the requirements under Article 19(6) shall make the policy invalid and unconstitutional. Thus,
they sought the court to issue the writ of mandamus, which would enable the state government to
disable the said notifications.

Issues:

 Whether the said notifications violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 19
(1) (g) of the Indian Constitution or not?
 Whether legislative backings are required for the purpose and do that needs to be complied with
as per article 19(6) or not?

Laws involved:

 Article 19(1) (g) – Right to practice any profession or to carry out any occupation, trade, or
business by the citizens.
 Article 19(6) – Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the article 19 (1) shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the
interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by
the said sub-clause (g), or prevent the State from making any law relating to,
 (ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any
trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens

Contentions of the parties:

Petitioners in this case put forth their three main contentions as follows:

 Firstly, it was argued that the state government of Punjab had no legal background through
legislation in order to carry on with any trade or business activity. They also pointed out that
their policy to establish a monopoly in the trade and business of publication of books and
printings activity is illegal in nature and has no jurisdiction to do so.
 Secondly, it was also contended by the petitioners that if the government want to establish a
monopoly, then such a policy should be considered only after enacting a legislature to give effect
to the same, and that should also comply with the essentials provided under article 19(6) of the
Indian Constitution.
 They argued that the state government should not be in the position to deprive the interests and
rights of the petitioners unless the government has enacted the law for the purpose and the
obligation to pay the compensation has also been fulfilled as has been required under article 31
of the Indian Constitution.

Decision:

The court observed and held as follows.

 With respect to the first question on whether there was a violation of fundamental rights of the
petitioners through the act by the state government, the court refused to accept the petitioners
argued that there was a violation of fundamental rights under article 19(1) (g). It observed that,
when it comes to school books, it is the school who should suggest the kind of books, and it is
not the right of publishers to insist the students or school for acceptance of their books as
 textbooks. It noted that when a trader is lucky enough in the market, his goods would be secured,
but if he loses any such trade, then he or she shall not state that his or her fundamental right to
have the customers has been violated. Thus, it stated and held that the scopes of such chances are
incidental to each business, and there is no fundamental right in the present case.

 Lastly, With respect to the second issue, the court firstly the importance of articles 73 and 162 of
the Indian Constitution as it deals with executive powers and the extent to which parliament and
state powers are executed. In that way, it was observed by the court that a modern state should be
expected to engage in all the activities that are required for the welfare of the people of the
country. It also observed that in order to carry on particular trade or business, it is indeed
required that special legislation is enacted for additional requirement of powers other than what
has been provided to an executive as per law. In that situation, special legislation would be
required to encroach upon the privacy rights, for that matter. As the question of whether there
was a violation of the fundamental rights of petitioners was dismissed, it is also immaterial to
state whether the government could, in a way, have powers to establish a monopoly without law
under article 19(6) of the constitution shall remain immaterial as well.

 Thus the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India.

Key Point
The judgment in the instant case makes the proposition beyond doubt that the power of the
executive is co-extensive to that of the legislature and thus the executive is empowered to carry
on the measures and exercise the powers, as vested within the legislature, so long as they are
within the permissible constitutional limits