State of Bombay v. R. M. D. C., AIR 1957 SC 699
DATE OF JUDGMENT. 09/04/1957
COURT. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT. THE STATE OF BOMBAY
RESPONDENT. R. M. D. CHAMARBAUGWALA
BENCH. DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ), AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA, SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P., DAS, S.K., GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
REFERRED. ART 32 & 31 AND 39(B)LIST 3 ENTRY 42, ART 254 S. 14(1) AND 14 (2), S. 73,74,80
CASE TYPE/ ISSUE. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)
FACTS OF CASE:-
The Supreme Court of India heard the case State of Bombay vs. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala on April 9, 1957.A newly created corporation served as the second respondent in the appeal.
In Bangalore-printed and distributed weekly newspapers and administered the R. M. D. C. Crosswords, a prize competition, in the State of Mysore. The organization’s founder and managing director was the first to answer.
The responders organised drop-off places for entry forms and entrance fees, employed neighbourhood collectors, and disseminated advertisements in the newspaper asking readers to compete. This newspaper was widely read in the State of Bombay.
The Bombay Legislature enacted the Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax (Amendment) Act of 1952 on November 20. It added a new section, S. 12A, levying a tax on the promoters, and it expanded the definition of “prize competition” in S. 2 (1) (d) of the Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competition Control and Tax Act of 1948 to include prize competitions conducted through newspapers printed and published outside the State.
ISSUE:-
In the case State of Bombay v. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala, the question at hand was whether the modified Act and the rules governing their application to such prize competitions were ultra-vires and infringed against the Constitution’s basic rights as guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g) and Article 301. The key components of
There were several points of contention, including whether the Respondents’ prize competition was neither a lottery nor gambling because it involved the use of skill, knowledge, and judgement;
whether the impugned Act operated extra-territorially because it affected the trade or business of holding prize competitions outside the State; and whether it violated Article 301 of the Constitution.
ARGUMENT:-
The arguments presented in the case State of Bombay vs R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala, 1957 were as follows:
Appellant’s Submissions (State of Bombay):
The challenged Act’s application was not extraterritorial, and its provisions were covered by Entries 33, 34, and 62 of the State List. The prize competitions held by the respondents were lotteries.
• No breach of Article 19 (1) (g) or Article 301 of the Constitution has occurred because the respondents were not operating a trade or company, and the Act were acknowledged as legitimate and competent law.
Respondent’s Submissions (R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala):
The contesting Act, which had an impact on the trade or industry of hosting prize competitions, said that the respondents’ prize competition was neither a lottery nor a game of chance.
Competitions that took place outside of the State and had extraterritorial effects were prohibited since they fell outside of the State Legislature’s sphere of influence.
• The limits imposed by the impugned Act on the trade or business were not reasonable and violated Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.
• The impugned Act violated Art. 301 of the Constitution in that it imposed restrictions on trade, commerce, and intercourse between the States.
JUDGEMENT :-
The Supreme Court of India rendered its decision in the case State of Bombay vs. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwala on April 9, 1957. The court determined that engaging in gaming or conducting a gambling enterprise is extra-commercial and therefore excluded.
‘Trade, Commerce, or Intercourse’ as defined. Therefore, it is not protected by the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse under Article 301 or the fundamental right to trade and profession under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution4. This court accepted the appeal made in opposition to the Bombay decision finding the Bombay Act unconstitutional.
Written by Abdul Rehman an intern under legal vidhiya.
