A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
The landmark judgment in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Others v. The State of Punjab, decided by the Supreme Court in 1955, is a seminal authority on the scope of executive power in India and the interpretation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The case scrutinised whether the State Government of Punjab, by nationalising the printing and publication of school textbooks and ousting private publishers, had infringed upon the fundamental rights of those publishers under the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that no fundamental right of the petitioners was violated by the executive action, emphasizing that executive powers are not limited only to legislated domains, and that the State is competent to carry on commercial or economic activities without legislative backing as long as no fundamental rights are breached. The judgment also delineated the boundaries of executive authority, clarified the functional division between legislative and executive powers, and interpreted Articles 73, 162, and 298 to mean that executive functions can operate within the scope of legislative competence, even without pre-existing legislation. This ruling is a cornerstone in understanding the constitutional framework governing State policies, public enterprise, and the permissible extent of executive discretion in India.
Keywords: Executive Power, Fundamental Rights, Article 19(1)(g), State Monopoly, Textbook Nationalisation, Constitution of India
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title: Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Others v. The State of Punjab
ii) Case Number: Petition No. 652 of 1954 and connected petitions Nos. 71 to 77 and 85 of 1955
iii) Judgement Date: 12th April 1955
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: Mukherjea C.J., Vivian Bose, Jagannadhadas, Venkatarama Ayyar, and Imam JJ.
vi) Author: Mukherjea C.J.
vii) Citation: AIR 1955 SC 549; 1955 SCR (2) 225
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Article 19(1)(g), Article 19(6), Article 31(2), Article 32, Article 73, Article 162, and Article 298 of the Constitution of India
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Fundamental Rights, Public Policy
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The judgment arose in the wake of the Punjab Government’s progressive decision to nationalise the preparation and publication of school textbooks in 1950. Until then, private publishers had enjoyed a significant role in preparing and supplying textbooks for recognised schools. The change in policy initiated governmental control over specific subjects and eventually culminated in a full-scale transition to state-published textbooks by 1952. This led to an outcry from private publishers, who argued that the state had unconstitutionally ousted them from their trade, violating their right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They filed a petition under Article 32, seeking writs to annul the impugned notifications of 1950 and 1952.
The petition posed a fundamental challenge to the limits of State executive power, examining whether State governments need legislative backing to engage in business, particularly one that may oust private enterprise. The challenge also extended to questioning whether the executive action violated property rights under Article 31(2), though ultimately the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the State.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
Prior to 1950, textbooks in Punjab were prepared and published by private entities who submitted them for governmental approval. The government approved a list of alternative books per subject, allowing school authorities the autonomy to select appropriate texts. However, in 1950, the Government began preparing and publishing books on subjects like agriculture, history, and social studies directly, foregoing the alternative method. By 1952, a government notification eliminated publishers altogether from the approval process, inviting only “authors and others” to submit materials for approval. Upon acceptance, copyright in the book vested wholly in the government, with the authors entitled to a 5% royalty.
Petitioners, who had long operated in textbook publishing, argued that the government’s action effectively created a state monopoly, removing their access to the market and infringing their fundamental rights. They sought relief under Article 32, alleging violations of Articles 19(1)(g) and 31(2) of the Constitution, and also questioned the executive’s competence to act without enabling legislation.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether the executive action of the State of Punjab, in nationalising textbook publishing, violated the petitioners’ fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to practice any profession or carry on any trade or business.
ii) Whether Articles 73 and 162 restrict executive action only to areas where there is a supporting legislative enactment.
iii) Whether deprivation of the private publishers’ right to conduct their trade amounted to a violation of Article 31(2) regarding property.
iv) Whether the policy of nationalisation can be enforced purely through executive action without a statute, and whether such action amounts to an illegal establishment of monopoly.
F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the executive cannot, in the absence of enabling legislation, create a commercial monopoly or oust private parties from an established field of business. They argued that the State’s policy, implemented solely via executive orders, violated Article 19(1)(g) as it deprived them of their profession without due process under law. They further invoked Article 19(6) to argue that such monopolies must be sanctioned by law and not established by executive fiat. The petitioners also contended that their interest in the business constituted property within the meaning of Article 31(2) and that they were deprived of this interest without compensation.
Reliance was placed on Motilal v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1951 All 257, where it was questioned whether executive action could supplant legislative sanction in trade matters. They argued that Articles 73 and 162 implied a necessity of legislative basis for executive functioning in matters touching fundamental rights or economic interests.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that the executive power of the State, under Article 162, is not limited to carrying out enacted laws but also extends to areas where the State legislature has competence to legislate, regardless of whether it has actually done so. They argued that there was no legal right to sell textbooks to government-recognised schools and hence, the petitioners had not suffered a constitutional injury. The State only changed the method of textbook selection and copyright vesting, without stopping the petitioners from continuing their business in the private domain.
The State relied on the Appropriation Acts under Article 266(3) to validate the financial expenditure involved, and also invoked Article 298, which authorises the Government to enter into contracts and carry on trade. It was argued that no fundamental rights were affected because the petitioners had no inherent right to have their books selected or purchased by the State.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Article 19(1)(g): Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
ii) Article 19(6): Reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public and creation of State monopolies.
iii) Article 31(2): Protection against deprivation of property without authority of law and compensation.
iv) Article 32: Constitutional remedy for enforcement of fundamental rights.
v) Article 73 and 162: Distribution of executive powers between Union and State.
vi) Article 298: Power of the Union and States to carry on trade or business and enter into contracts.
vii) Article 266(3): No money can be appropriated out of the Consolidated Fund except in accordance with law.
I) JUDGEMENT
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
i) The Supreme Court held that the Government’s actions did not infringe Article 19(1)(g), as there existed no constitutional or legal right in favour of private publishers to demand that their books be selected or sold through government-recognised schools. The decision clarified that mere loss of opportunity or market access due to a policy change does not amount to infringement of fundamental rights. The Court ruled that executive action need not be predicated on prior legislation if the State Legislature is competent to legislate on the subject.
b. OBITER DICTA
i) The Court observed that the executive is not merely an agent of the legislature. It has an independent sphere of functioning, including the authority to formulate policy and engage in business activities, provided it does not encroach upon constitutional provisions or infringe upon fundamental rights. The Court emphasised that Articles 73 and 162 are about distribution, not limitation, of executive power.
c. GUIDELINES
-
Executive power extends to subjects within legislative competence, even without enacted laws.
-
No fundamental right exists in a prospective market or chance of profit.
-
No compensation is required unless there is a legal or constitutional deprivation of property.
-
Appropriation Acts suffice to authorise State expenditure for such purposes.
-
Monopolies can be created through executive action unless they breach fundamental rights.
J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The judgment significantly shapes the doctrine of executive powers under the Indian Constitution, affirming that the executive can engage in commercial activities without enabling legislation. It secures the State’s prerogative in public interest policies, such as nationalisation, without unduly infringing on the rights of private entities. It also underscores the doctrinal limits of Article 19(1)(g) and teaches that loss of opportunity does not equate to loss of a fundamental right.
K) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
-
Motilal v. The Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1951 All 257
-
The Commonwealth and the Central Wool Committee v. Colonial Combing, Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., 31 C.L.R. 421
-
Attorney-General for Victoria v. The Commonwealth, 52 C.L.R. 533
b. Important Statutes Referred
-
Constitution of India – Articles 19(1)(g), 19(6), 31(2), 32, 73, 162, 266(3), and 298
-
Government of India Act, 1935 – Sections 8, 49(2) (historical context)
