RAM JAWAYA KAPUR V STATE

OF PUNJAB

FACTS OF THE CASE

From 1905 to 1950, in the State of Punjab, the
recognized schools of Punjab had to refer to the books from the list of
alternate text as approved by the Education Department of Punjab. For the
purpose of approval, various publishers or independent authors submitted
their textbooks that were prepared with their own money, to the
Government of Punjab. The Education Department then approved a few
text books out of various text books published by various publishers in
accordance with the principles laid down by it.
In May 1950, post partition of the erstwhile Punjab into
three zones, this procedure was changed by certain resolutions passed by
the Government of Punjab. The Government prepared and published
textbooks on few subjects without inviting them from the publishers and
authors. On the remaining subjects, the earlier procedure was followed but
instead of approving a list of textbooks, the Government only approved one
textbook on each subject. The Government also charged 5% of the sale
price as royalty on all the approved textbooks. Through another notification
in August 1952, the Government only invited textbooks from authors for
approval. Also, the authors whose textbooks were approved were made to
enter an agreement according to which the copyright in these books vested
absolutely in the Government and the authors would get only 5% royalty on
the sale of the text books at the price or prices specified in the list. Thus the
Government took the publishing, printing and selling of the books
exclusively in their own hands.
 The present petition was filed under Article
32 of the Indian Constitution against the notification of the Government
passed in August 1952. The six petitioners, who were individuals engaged
in the occupation of publishing, printing and selling textbooks, contented
that the Government of Punjab, was not only imposing on them,
unwarranted restriction on the regular carrying out of their occupation of
publishing books but had altogether oust the petitioners and other fellow
traders from their business. It was contended by the petitioner that this act
of government was not only violative of their fundamental right of carrying
any type of trade or commerce mentioned in Art. 19 (1)(g), but was also
ultra-vires to the constitutional power vested in the government, as the
government being an executory body of the State did not have the power to
do so without any specific legislation empowering them to enter into that
activity or trade.
The respondent, the Government of Punjab, on the
other hand, maintained that the said action was completely covered under
the ambit of their implied executive power as owing to the changing era, the
executive now has an increased ambit of powers and functions as opposed
to the traditional function of maintaining state security and decorum. The
government further contended that they acted in accordance to the
procedure required and hence not only making it completely intra-vires their
powers but also in line with the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

ANALYSIS
Ram Jawayya v State of Punjab, is still an
important case in the field of constitutional law as it discusses about the
complexity and extent of separation of powers in the Indian context while
interpreting separation of powers in the light of the federal nature of the
Indian Constitution.
The court emphasized on the view that with the rising need in change of
paradigm of functions of the State, there needs to be some intrinsic change
in the understanding and constituent of the executive powers. While
analyzing this concept the court of law held that now there is a need for the
executive body to be capable of taking the step for fulfilling their obligations
without the backing of any legislation permitting the act. Owing to the
changing era, there was a need to redefine the powers and functions of the
state and to shift from the traditional one, which include the protection of
the state and its civilians and territory from both foreign and domestic
enemy. The present definition of functions of the state, according to apex
court, also included the social welfare activity as an intrinsic feature.
Therefore, the Court held that the executive, in exercise of its functions,
does not need any particular legislation to sanction the act, but rather only
requires to follow the procedure; mainly detailing the cause of the financial
appropriation.
Thus, the Court held that the modern day
interpretation of the doctrine of separation of powers provides for a
distinction to be drawn between ‘essential’ and ‘incidental’ powers. Hence,
the Court made a strict distinction between the powers of the various
organs but recognized the possibility of over-lap between the functions
carried out by various organs in exercise of their powers. The Court
concluded that while one organ of the State cannot usurp or encroach upon
the essential functions of another organ, but may exercise the incidental
functions thereof.
Hence, while determining the relevance of doctrine of
separation of powers, one must keep in mind the practical applicability
along with the theoretical understanding of the doctrine while applying the
doctrine on a day-to-day functioning of various organs of the State. One
must understand that the Government cannot be divided into watertight
compartments. Smooth running of government is possible only by co-
operation and mutual adjustment of all the three organs of the government.

CONCLUSION
while concluding wants to say that this case is
indeed an important one in India in the context of understanding the
constitutions federal structure and separation of power among the 3 wings
of the government, i.e. the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. The case
is also important for understanding the scope till which an executive body
can interfere in a private right without any specific legislative backing.
 This case apart from this separation of power and
federalism aspect is also important in understanding the changing
paradigm of the constitutional need, especially the executive power which,
according to the court should now be interpreted broadly to cover all the
necessary power needed to act for the development and uplifting the
society.
It can be concluded that the doctrine of
separation of power, in contemporary times, is not restricted to the strict
division of powers among various organs of the State but includes the
exercise of such power on the principle of “Checks and Balances”
signifying the fact that none of the organs of Government should usurp the
essential functions of the other organs. The case furthers the
understanding of separation of power by protecting those acts of an organ
that might appear to encroach upon the powers and functions of other
organs but is mere incidental to its main powers or functions. Hence, even
though it allows for a situation were an organ might encroach upon the
powers of the other, it uphold the independence of each organ as well.
This understanding of the relationship
between the three organs of the State becomes relevant in contemporary
times throughout the world owing to the increase in complexity of functions
of each of the organs.