NDLI: Chintaman Rao Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India, Constitution of India Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of Bidis (agricultural Purposes) Act, 1948 (64 of 1948)
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Petition Allowed
Headnote	Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act (LXIV of 1948), ss. 8, 4-Law prohibiting bidi manufacture during agricultural season-Validity -Restriction of fundamental right to carry on trade or business Reasonableness of restrictions-Test of reasonableness-Jurisdiction of court to consider whether restrictions are reasonable-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 19(1)(g), 19(6). The Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act, LXIV of 1948, a law which was in force at the commencement of the Constitution of India, provided that 11 the Deputy Commissioner may by notification fix a. period to be an agricultural season with respect to such villages as may be specified therein" and that "the Deputy Commissioners may by general order which shall extend to such villages as he may specify, prohibit the manufacture of bidis during the agricultural season.'' The Act provided further that no person residing in a village specified in Buch order shall during the agricultural season engage himself in the manufacture of bidis, and no manufacturer shall during the said season employ any person for the manufacture of bidis." An order was issued by the Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of the Act forbidding all persons residing in certain villages from engaging in the manufacture of bidis during a particular season. A manufacturer of bidis and an employee in a bidi factory residing in one of the said villages applied under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus alleging that since the Act prohibited the petitioners from exercising their fundamental right to carry on their trade or business which was guaranteed to them by cl. (1) (g) of Art. 19 of the Constitution, the Act was void :Held, (i) that the object of the statute, namely, to provide measures for the supply of adequate labour for agricultural purposes in bidi manufacturing areas of the Province could well have been achieved by legislation restraining the employment of agricultural labour in the manufacture of bidis during the agricultural season without prohibiting altogether the manufacture of bidis. As the provisions of the Act had no reasonable relation to the object in view, the Act was not a law imposing "reasonable restrictions" within the meaning of cl. (6) of Art. 19 and was therefore void. (ii) The law even to the extent that it could be said to authorize the imposition of restrictions in regard to agricultural labour cannot be held to be valid because the language employed was wide enough to cover restrictions both within and without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative action affecting the right, and so long as the possibility of its being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution cannot be ruled out, it must be held to be wholly void. 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. Legislation 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 Art. 19 (!) (g.! and the social control permitted by cl. (6) of Art. 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality. Held also, that the determination by the Legislature of what constitutes a. reasonable restriction is not final and conclusive. The Supreme Court has power to consider whether the restrictions imposed by the Legislature are reasonable within the meaning of Art. 19, cl. (6) 'and to declare the law void if in its opinion the restrictions are not reasonable.
Judge	Honble Mr. Justice Mehr Chand Mahajan
Neutral Citation	1950 INSC 27
Petitioner	Chintaman Rao
Respondent	The State Of Madhya Pradesh
SCR	[1950] 1 S.C.R. 759
Judgement Date	1950-11-08
Case Number	78

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Chintaman Rao Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Visweshwar Rao Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Messrs Mohanlal Hargovind Das, Bidi Merchants, Jabalpur (m.p.) Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another.

Mohanlal Hargovinddas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Shri Chintaman Rao and Another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sardar Govindrao & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Lakshman and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Sardarmal Lalwani Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Mansaram Vs. S. P. Pathak: and Others

Chintaman Rao Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Chintaman Rao Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Visweshwar Rao Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Messrs Mohanlal Hargovind Das, Bidi Merchants, Jabalpur (m.p.) Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Another.

Mohanlal Hargovinddas Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Shri Chintaman Rao and Another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sardar Govindrao & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Lakshman and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Sardarmal Lalwani Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Mansaram Vs. S. P. Pathak: and Others

Chintaman Rao Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh