A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The landmark judgment in Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal Kuan, Delhi and Another v. Union of India and Others, delivered by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 1959, interpreted the scope of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution vis-à-vis commercial advertisements under the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Act on the grounds that it infringed their rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 21, and 31. The Court held that commercial advertisements relating to the efficacy of drugs and medicines for treatment of certain diseases do not constitute speech protected under Article 19(1)(a). The Court reasoned that the statute was aimed at curbing self-medication and unverified claims made through advertisements, thereby safeguarding public health. The decision also clarified the extent of delegated legislation and declared certain provisions, such as Section 3(d) and Section 8 of the Act, as unconstitutional due to lack of proper legislative guidance. This case laid down a significant precedent on commercial speech, delegation of legislative power, and reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

Keywords:

Commercial Speech, Advertisement Ban, Self-Medication, Article 19(1)(a), Delegated Legislation, Reasonable Restriction, Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title
Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal Kuan, Delhi and Another v. Union of India and Others

ii) Case Number
Petition Nos. 81, 62, 63 & 3 of 1959

iii) Judgment Date
18 December 1959

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
B. P. Sinha (C.J.), Jafer Imam, J. L. Kapur, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta (JJ.)

vi) Author
Justice J. L. Kapur

vii) Citation
AIR 1960 SC 554; 1960 SCR (2) 671

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Article 14, Article 19(1)(a), (f), (g), Article 21, Article 31, Article 32 of the Constitution of India

• Section 3, Section 8, Section 14(c) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954

• Rule 6 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Rules, 1955

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects

• Constitutional Law

• Commercial Law

• Public Health Law

• Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case arose from the enforcement of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, a statute designed to prohibit the promotion and sale of drugs by misleading advertisements that claimed magical or unfounded therapeutic benefits. The petitioners, Hamdard Dawakhana and others, claimed that their advertisements for Unani medicines had been suppressed under the Act, affecting their freedom of speech and right to carry on business under Article 19. They challenged various provisions of the Act as being violative of their fundamental rights. The legislation had its roots in public health considerations, aiming to curb self-medication and fraudulent claims about the treatment of serious diseases. The judgment is significant for its nuanced approach in balancing public interest with individual constitutional freedoms.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), was a reputed manufacturer of Unani medicines and relied heavily on advertisements to market its products. Following the enactment and enforcement of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, their advertisements—particularly those suggesting cures for diseases like diabetes, epilepsy, venereal diseases, and sexual disorders—were found to violate Section 3 of the Act. The Drugs Controller issued multiple notices, and several state governments acted to seize and prohibit the sale of medicines, alleging non-compliance with the Act. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, contending that the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions on their rights to freedom of speech, property, and business.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the impugned Act violates Article 19(1)(a) by restricting commercial advertisements?
ii. Whether the Act imposes unreasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(f) and (g)?
iii. Whether Section 3(d) and Section 8 involve excessive delegation of legislative powers to the executive?
iv. Whether the Act is discriminatory under Article 14?
v. Whether the seizure of products under Section 8 violates Articles 21 and 31?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

They asserted that advertising is a form of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and cannot be restricted unless it falls under the exceptions in Article 19(2). The petitioners argued that their Unani medicines were based on recognized traditional systems and that prohibiting their advertisement constituted a violation of trade and business rights under Article 19(1)(g). They further contended that the delegation of power to the executive to specify diseases in the Schedule and authorize seizures was uncanalised and arbitrary, rendering the Act unconstitutional. They invoked judgments like Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1950] SCR 759 to support their claim that total prohibitions are not reasonable restrictions.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The Solicitor General defended the Act as a public health measure, stating that self-medication based on misleading advertisements could be dangerous and exploitative, especially in a country with low medical literacy. The object of the Act was not to interfere with free speech but to prevent commercial exploitation of vulnerable people. Citing Lewis J. Valentine v. F. J. Chrestensen, 86 L.Ed. 1262, the government argued that commercial advertisements do not fall under protected speech. They insisted that the Act’s classification was reasonable, and restrictions were in public interest as allowed by Article 19(6).

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression
ii. Article 19(1)(g): Right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation
iii. Article 19(6): Reasonable restrictions on trade and business
iv. Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights
v. Section 3, Section 8, and Section 14(c) of Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954
vi. Rule 6 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies Rules, 1955

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. Commercial advertisements are not protected under Article 19(1)(a) unless they serve a public interest or propagate ideas.

ii. The impugned Act primarily regulates trade and business, not speech, and therefore falls within the permissible limits of Article 19(6).

iii. Section 3(d) and the phrase “or any other disease or condition which may be specified in the rules” confer uncanalised legislative power, hence are ultra vires.

iv. Section 8, allowing seizure of articles without adequate procedural safeguards, violates Articles 19 and 21, and is unconstitutional.

b. OBITER DICTA

i. The Court observed that while speech is a constitutional right, its purpose and context matter. Commercial speech used solely for business promotion lacks the ideological value that Article 19(1)(a) seeks to protect.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Only those advertisements conveying medical information privately to registered practitioners can be allowed under Section 14(c).

• The government must not delegate essential legislative functions without adequate standards.

• Seizure powers under such statutes must have safeguards and procedures to be constitutionally valid.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court provided a measured approach in balancing individual rights with collective health interests. The judgment created a landmark precedent on commercial speech, delineating the limits of Article 19(1)(a) with respect to advertisements. While upholding the public health object of the 1954 Act, the Court ensured that delegated powers were not exercised without guidance, thus protecting democratic accountability. The case remains a cornerstone for discussions on free speech, commercial regulation, and administrative law.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1950] SCR 759
ii. Lewis J. Valentine v. F. J. Chrestensen, 86 L.Ed. 1262
iii. Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, [1959] SCR 12
iv. State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, [1957] SCR 874
v. Alice Lee Grosjean v. The American Press Co., 80 L.Ed. 660
vi. John W. Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co., 60 L.Ed. 679
vii. J. M. Near v. State of Minnesota, 75 L.Ed. 1357

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), 19(6), 21, 31, 32
ii. Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, Sections 2, 3, 8, 14
iii. Drugs and Magic Remedies Rules, 1955, Rule 6