Article 19(6) Reasonable Restrictions

Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India: The Doctrine of Reasonable Restrictions on Fundamental Freedoms

Introduction

The Constitution of India, under Part III, guarantees certain fundamental rights to its citizens. Among these, Article 19(1) enumerates six fundamental freedoms, including the right to freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, the right to form associations or unions, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India, the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, and significantly, the right "to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business" under Article 19(1)(g). However, these rights are not absolute. Article 19(6) empowers the State to impose "reasonable restrictions" on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(g) in the interests of the general public. This article seeks to analyze the concept of "reasonable restrictions" under Article 19(6) as interpreted and applied by the Indian judiciary, drawing primarily from the provided reference materials.

The Constitutional Framework: Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(6)

Article 19(1)(g): The Right to Freedom of Profession, Occupation, Trade, or Business

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. This right is a cornerstone of economic liberty and individual autonomy, allowing citizens to pursue livelihoods of their choice. The Supreme Court has recognized that this right is expansive, encompassing various economic activities (Internet And Mobile Association Of India v. Reserve Bank Of India, 2020; Modern Dental College And Research Centre And Others v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, 2016). Even the right to close down a business has been held to be a part of this fundamental right (Excel Wear v. Union Of India, 1978).

Article 19(6): Permissible Restrictions

The freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to the limitations set out in Article 19(6). As stated in Association Of International Schools And Principals Foundation And Another v. State Of Maharashtra And Another (Bombay High Court, 2010), Article 19(6) reads:

"Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law insofar as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law insofar as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to— (i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or (ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise."

Thus, Article 19(6) permits the State to make laws imposing reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. It also specifically saves laws relating to professional or technical qualifications and laws enabling State monopolies (Binoy Viswam v. Union Of India And Others, 2017; State Of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal Vyas, 1971).

Judicial Interpretation of "Reasonable Restrictions"

The judiciary plays a crucial role in determining whether a restriction is "reasonable" and in the "interests of the general public." The Supreme Court has laid down several principles to guide this determination.

Defining "Reasonableness": General Principles

The expression "reasonable restriction" signifies that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public (Chintaman Rao v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, 1950; Dr. Y.P Singh And Others, Etc. v. State Of U.P And Others, 1982). The test of reasonableness must be applied to each individual statute, and no abstract standard can be laid down (State Of Madras v. V.G Row, 1952; Ayurvedic Enlisted Doctors' Association v. State Of Maharashtra And Another, 2009).

The Doctrine of Proportionality

The doctrine of proportionality is increasingly recognized as a key component of assessing reasonableness. This doctrine ensures that the means used to achieve a legitimate objective are not excessive and are narrowly tailored. The Supreme Court in Om Kumar And Others v. Union Of India (2000) discussed the Wednesbury principles and proportionality, noting that proportionality is often applied where fundamental rights are in question. In Modern Dental College And Research Centre And Others v. State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others (2016), the Court explicitly stated that the doctrine of proportionality is enshrined in Article 19 itself when clause (1) is read with clause (6). This was reiterated in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union Of India And Others (2020), where internet shutdowns were subjected to the test of proportionality. The Court in Internet And Mobile Association Of India v. Reserve Bank Of India (2020) struck down an RBI circular restricting banking access for virtual currency dealings as disproportionate.

Restriction v. Prohibition

The term "restriction" in Article 19(6) has been interpreted to include "prohibition" in appropriate cases. In Narendra Kumar And Others v. Union Of India And Others (1959), the Supreme Court held that a restriction may extend to total prohibition if the circumstances warrant it, provided it is reasonable and in the public interest. This view was also noted in Amish Devgan v. Union Of India (2020), although in the context of Article 19(2). For instance, a total ban on the slaughter of cow progeny was upheld as a reasonable restriction in State Of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat And Others (2005), considering public interest and Directive Principles. Similarly, the prohibition of trade in certain harmful goods or activities can be justified.

Procedural Fairness

Procedural fairness is an integral part of reasonable restrictions. Laws or executive actions that impose restrictions without due process, such as the opportunity to be heard or a reasoned decision, may be struck down. In Excel Wear v. Union Of India (1978), the lack of a requirement to provide reasons for refusing permission to close an undertaking contributed to the provision being held unconstitutional. In State Of Madras v. V.G Row (1952), the lack of adequate judicial oversight over executive declarations of associations as unlawful was a key factor in invalidating the provision. The importance of procedural compliance was also highlighted in Narendra Kumar And Others v. Union Of India And Others (1959), where a clause was struck down for non-compliance with procedural mandates for publication and laying before Parliament.

Application of Reasonable Restrictions in Specific Contexts

Regulation of Business and Economic Activities

Regulation of Professions

Public Order, Morality, and General Welfare

  • Restrictions for Public Order: Restrictions imposed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. for public tranquility, such as during elections, can be deemed reasonable if based on material facts and aimed at preventing breach of peace (solemwon v. state of manipur and others, 2019).
  • Protection of Animals and Environment: A complete ban on the slaughter of bulls and bullocks, even after they cease to be useful, was upheld as a reasonable restriction in the public interest, considering their continued utility for agriculture, organic manure, biogas, and in light of Directive Principles (Article 48) (State Of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat And Others, 2005).

The Role of Directive Principles of State Policy

The Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution, though not justiciable, are fundamental in the governance of the country and guide the State in making laws. The Supreme Court has held that DPSPs must be read into the fundamental rights and can inform the "reasonableness" of a restriction and the "interests of the general public" under Article 19(6). In State Of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat And Others (2005), Article 48 (organization of agriculture and animal husbandry, prohibition of cow slaughter) was pivotal in upholding the ban on cattle slaughter. Similarly, in Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. And Another (1994), the Court noted that in judging reasonableness, Directive Principles should be borne in mind. The obligation of the State under Article 47 (duty to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living and to improve public health, including prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs injurious to health) was considered a basis for reasonable restrictions on the liquor trade (B. Ramkumar Adityan v. Additional Chief Secretary Prohibition And Excise Department Government Of Tamil Nadu And Others, 2023, citing State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co.). Furthermore, the mandate of Article 21-A (Right to Education) and other DPSPs (Articles 41, 45, 46) were considered in upholding provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009, as reasonable restrictions on the rights of private schools (Society For Unaided Private Schools Of Rajasthan v. Union Of India And Another, 2012).

Conclusion

Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India serves as a critical mechanism for balancing the fundamental right to freedom of profession, occupation, trade, or business with the broader interests of the general public. The Indian judiciary, through a catena of judgments, has meticulously evolved the doctrine of "reasonable restrictions." This doctrine requires that any limitation imposed by the State must be non-arbitrary, proportionate, have a clear nexus with the public interest it seeks to serve, and adhere to procedural fairness. The courts consider various factors, including the nature of the right, the purpose of the restriction, the prevailing socio-economic conditions, and significantly, the guiding principles laid down in the Directive Principles of State Policy. The concept is dynamic, allowing the law to adapt to new challenges, such as those posed by emerging technologies or evolving societal needs, while ensuring that the core of the fundamental freedoms remains protected against excessive or unjustified State encroachment. The continuous judicial scrutiny ensures that Article 19(6) facilitates legitimate regulation without degenerating into a tool for arbitrary power.