CHINTAMAN RAO V/S STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 1951 AIR 118

Author: Marisha Pal

Edited By: Rituparna Panda, Law student at Birla Global University.

ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This is one of the important landmark judgments that protect the fundamental right to practice any profession without any interference of the legislative policy, which is against the Constitution. The petitioners were the bidi makers and workers which was prohibited during agricultural season in certain districts of Madhya Pradesh.

The court held that the order by the commission to prohibit bidi manufacturing is illegal.

 FACTS OF THE CASE

 The petitioners were the manufacturers and workers of bidi making in the district of Sagar of Madhya Pradesh. In the year 1950, the commissioner of the district issued an order under “The Central Province and Berar Regulation of Manufacturer of Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act,1948” which prohibited the persons of some villages from engaging in the manufacturing process of bidi.

This act empowers the commissioner to determine the agriculture season and enforce penalties, which may include imprisonment. The aim was to ensure sufficient laborers for agriculture in specific seasons of the year to maintain sufficient food production.

Two petitions were presented before the court under article 32 of the constitution which “grants every individual the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights” for the writ of mandamus and challenging the order as it affected their fundamental right of freedom of occupation and business mentioned under Article 19 (1)(g) of the constitution.

 LEGAL ISSUE

Whether the prohibition of carrying on the business of manufacturing bidis only in certain villages during the agricultural season may amount to restriction under article 19 (1)(g) of the constitution.

PETITIONER ARGUMENT

• The counsel for Petitioner argued that the act of the Deputy Commissioner is against the public interest.
• The counsel for Petitioner argued the fundamental right of the bidi worker is violated under Article 19 (1)(g) of the constitution.
• The counsel for Petitioner argued that these restrictions were unreasonable.

 RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS

•  The counsel for the respondent submitted that the act was applied with the aim to increase and promote food production.
• The counsel for the respondent stated that the state legislative is well aware of the social and economic condition of the state.
• The counsel for the respondent stated that the act taken by the Deputy Commissioner was for public good and welfare.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court held that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on certain districts was against the right mentioned under Article 19 of the constitution.

The Hon’ble Court stated that the word “proper ban” was against the public interest and any act which is against the provisions of the constitution needed to be repealed.

The court held the act intervenes under the profession of the people by imposing a ban on manufacturers of the bidi making and not in accordance with Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution.

The court held that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was illegal and the petitioner had to pay the full cost as compensation

CONCLUSION

To understand that the impugned act is against the rights of the people, the court understands the provisions of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(6). The reasonable restriction mentioned should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature which is required for the public good. In this case, the ban was not only on the manufacturers of the bidis but also they were not allowed to employ labor from neighboring villages. The conventions of the respondent were against the provision of the constitution, as the restriction made by the legislation is not final and conclusive.

The word reasonable requires intelligent care and good reason is required to make the decision. Certain restrictions have been mentioned under Article 19 (6), used to interpret the law as well as understand its nature and extend to protect the rights of the people.