Freedom of Profession, Occupation, Trade or Business

FREEDOM OF PROFESSION, OCCUPATION, TRADE OR BUSINESS
Articles 19(1)(g) and 19(6)
The Article 19 (1) (g) guarantees to all citizens the right “to practice any profession or
to carry on any occupation, trade or business”. However, the right to carry on a
profession, trade or business is not unqualified. It can be restricted and regulated by
authority of law. Thus the state can under clause (6) of Article 19 make any law -
(a) Imposing reasonable restriction on this right ‘in the interest of public’,
(b) Prescribing professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any

profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business,
(c) Enabling the state to carry on any trade or business to the exclusion of citizens
wholly or partially.
It is thus clear that under Article 19 (6) the State is empowered to impose reasonable
restrictions on the right guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g). The condition, however, is
that the restriction:
(a) Must be reasonable, and
(b) In the interest of general public.
In P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharastra, AIR 2005 SC 3226, it has been held that
the right to establish an educational institution, for charity or for profit, being an
occupation is guaranteed under the Constitution to all citizens under Article 19(1)(g)
and to minorities under Article 30.
In Sukumar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, (1993) 3 S.C.C. 724, the

appellants had challenged the validity of West Bengal State Health Services Act, 1990,
on the ground that it imposes, unreasonable restriction on their right to carry on any
occupation or trade or business under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution.
Section 9 of the Act prohibited private practice by teacher-doctors. The Supreme

Court held that imposition of private practice on teacher-doctors is reasonable and in
the interest of general public.
In N.R. & F. Mills v. N.T.G. Brothers, AIR 1971 S.C. 264, the Government issued
an order under the Rice Milling Industries (Regulations) Act, 1958, sanctioning the
change in the location of the rice mills from its original site to the new site. The
respondent challenged the order on the ground that appellant’s mill was moved to a
place in the vicinity of their rice mills and in consequence of the removal of the
appellant’s mill, their business was likely to be adversely affected and amounted to
unreasonable restriction on his right to carry on business.
The court held the order to be valid. The right to practice any profession, trade and
business includes that it is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of
general public and not that it adversely affects other’s business.
In Lakhan Lal vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 S.C. 722, it has been held that the State
has the power to enforce an absolute prohibition of manufacture for sale of
intoxicating liquor. The State has the exclusive right or privilege to manufacture, store,
and sale of liquor and to grant that to its license holders on payment of considerations
with such considerations and restrictions for its regulations as may be necessary in the
public interest.
The right to carry on business includes the right to close it any time the owner likes.
But as no right is absolute, so the right to close is also not absolute. The restrictions
can be placed on it in the interest of public. In Excel Wear v. Union of India, AIR
1979 SC 25, it was held that refusal or approval for closure of a business when the
owner cannot pay even minimum wages to his employees, was not in the interest of
public and hence it was invalid.
Reasonable Restrictions
In order to determine the reasonableness of the restrictions for the purpose of clause
(6) of Article 19, regard must be had to the nature of the business and conditions
prevailing in the particular trade. It thus obvious that nature and business must differ
from trade to trade and no hard and fast rules concerning all can be laid down.
The concept, “interest of the general public” is of wide import and covers legislation
for these preservation and protection of public safety, health, morality and general
welfare of the people. In A.K. Gopalan v. state of Madras, AIR 1956 S.C. 27, the
Supreme Court has that the word, “general public” refers to the rest of the citizens
with reference to free citizen who claims the right in question. It does not refer to any
group or class of people as distinguished from the people generally.
In All Delhi Cycle Rickshaw Operators’ Union v. Municipal Corporation of

Delhi, (1987) 1 S.C.C. 371, it was held that the by-law 3 of the Cycle Rickshaw
By-laws, 1960 framed under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which restricted
the issue of Licenses only to the owners of the rickshaws who play themselves but
excluded persons owning more than one cycle rickshaws and who hire them to
rickshaw-pullers, was constitutionally valid as it imposed reasonable restriction in the
interest of general public and was therefore not violative of Article 19 (1) (g). The
object of the by-laws was to prevent exploitation of rickshaw pullers by the owners of
the cycle-rickshaws.
In Minerva Talkies, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1988 S.C. 526, a Rule
of the State Government prescribing that no licensee would be allowed to exhibit
more than four shows in a day, was held to be valid as imposing reasonable restriction
on the right to carry on business in the interest of general public.
In Laxmi Khandsari vs. State of U.P., AIR 1981 S.C. 873, a notification issued
under the Sugar-Cane (Control) Order stopping crushers from producing Khandsari so
that production of white sugar could be increased and thereby making the sugar
available to the consumers at a reasonable price, was held to be imposing restrictions
in the interest of general public on the right of persons using crushers, and therefore
valid.
(a) Taxation not restriction - the fundamental right of citizen to practice any
profession or carry on any trade or business is not wholly free from the taxing power
of the State. No citizen has the right to carry on his trade without paying taxes
lawfully levied by the Government. In Kailash Nath v. State of U.P., it was held that
a tax law ‘otherwise valid’ creates no unreasonable restriction.
(b) Professional and technical qualification - the State may prescribe the
professional or technical qualifications necessary for trade, business or occupation, for
example, it may prescribe that a lawyer must hold LL.B. degree or a doctor must have
passed M.B.B.S. degree exam, or so on. The Advocates’ Act, 1961, the Indian
Medical Degrees Act, Bengal Dentist Act, etc. are some of the examples which
regulate professions requiring qualifications.
(c) State trading and Nationalisation - this too comes within Article 19 (6) (ii) of
the Constitution. The State is competent under this Article to nationalise any business
or trade and carry on itself. In Moti Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1951 Alld. 259, it was
held that the State was not competent to create monopoly in trade or business in its
own favor.

Freedom of Profession, Occupation, Trade or Business

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Freedom of Profession, Occupation, Trade or Business

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Freedom of Profession, Occupation, Trade or Business

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FREEDOM OF PROFESSION, OCCUPATION, TRADE OR BUSINESS

Articles 19(1)(g) and 19(6)

(b) Prescribing professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any

(a) Must be reasonable, and

(b) In the interest of general public.

In Sukumar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal, (1993) 3 S.C.C. 724, the

Section 9 of the Act prohibited private practice by teacher-doctors. The Supreme

In All Delhi Cycle Rickshaw Operators’ Union v. Municipal Corporation of

You might also like