Chintamanrao v. State of M.P., AIR 1951 SC

Advertisements

Introduction: –

This case can deal with the question of what constitutes a reasonable restriction under article 19 (6) and 19(1)(g) of the constitution. This case basically connected with the fundamental right related to trade. It is pertinent to note that there was no query of res extra commercium but improper regulation by the state government.

Facts of the Case: –

1. The petitioners were the workers of bidis making in the district of Madhya Pradesh.
2. The Madhya Pradesh government has passed the act relating to the Central Province of Berar Regulation of Manufacture of bidis Act, 1948.
3. The Deputy Commissioner has passed the order relating to prohibit the manufacture of bidis in some villages under this some villages the petitioner village is also included.

Issues raised in the case: –

• Whether the state can pass an act which may contravene the rights provided by the constitution.

Contentions: –

1. The petitioner cleared that any impugned act does not impose any restriction on the fundamental right related to business that is provided under the provision of the constitution.
2. The petitioner also stated that the act passed by the deputy commissioner is totally against the public interest.
3. The respondent stated that whatever the act was passed was under the object to promote the grow more food campaign and help to bring the fallow land to plough.
4. The responded also stated under their statement that the state legislature is also a proper authority to recognise what is good or what is bad, the legislature is also well versed with the social and economic condition of the state.

Judgement of the Case: –

1. The supreme court held that the impugned act passed by the deputy commissioner was against the right conferred by the article 19 (6) of the constitution.
2. The supreme court stated that the word “Proper Ban” used in the act was against the public interest and it was also held by the supreme court that if any act goes against the provision of constitution it was repealed.
3. The supreme court also held under this case that this act intervenes under the private profession of the person by imposing a ban on the manufacturer of bidi making arbitrarily in the season. This is not a proper ban on the right conferred under Article 19 (1) (g) of the constitution.
4. In last they gave their decision by saying that the order passed by deputy commissioner was illegal and the petitioner was ordered to pay their full costs.

Conclusion: –

To conclude here, in this case basically the authority has passed the impugned act which contravenes straightly toward the fundamental right which is based on business. In judgement the supreme court clearly stated that any act which goes against the constitutional provision can be repealed.

Reference of the case: –

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1256541/

https://lawtimesjournal.in/chintaman-rao-and-ors-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh/

This Case Analysis is written by SOMYA RAJAWAT student of Maharani Laxmi Bai Arts and Commerce College, Gwalior Madhya Pradesh.

Intern at legal vidhiya.

Admin