Name of the Student : ARAVINDH M

Registration Number : 18DBLBT004

Programme : ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Semester : VI SEMESTER

Course : LLB

Course Code : 5BLB401

Component : CASE ANALYSIS

Submitted to : Prof. ARUNA

 RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB

INTRODUCTION

Administrative law is one of the most important branches of law that deals with the acts
of administrative authorities, often known as the executive. They are government
agencies and departments. One distinguishing aspect of administrative agencies is that
they cover legislative voids. The administrative authority received its jurisdiction from
the country's statutes and constitution. In this instance Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v.
State of Punjab is a significant case in administrative law. It raises concerns about the
scope of authority that a CEO can wield. Whether it has the authority to infringe on
basic rights, whether it requires legislation to execute powers, and whence it gets its
authority.

FACTS OF THE CASE

All schools recognized by the Punjab government were required to obey a law requiring
course and textbook approval by the education department before they could be taught
in school. It was a textbook nationalization initiative. There existed a mechanism known
as alternative method, which allowed independent publishers to print using their own
money and arrangements. Some of the textbooks were authorized by the education
department as alternative textbooks and were afterwards picked as alternative books by
the school heads for each subject. Later, the government approved a resolution allowing
them to publish subjects like as history, agriculture, social studies, and so on without
asking publishers. It removed the alternative system and approved only one kind of
textbooks for each subject and charged a royalty of 5% of the approved textbooks. This
gave the monopoly to the government. More changes were introduced by the
notification in 1952, omitted the word “Publisher” and only included “Authors and
others” which allows them to get approval from the government. Authors or copyright
holders might receive a 5% royalty on book sales. The petitioner's company was
hampered as a result of this. The petitioner was a group of six persons who ran a firm
called "Uttar Kapur Chand & Sons" that sold, published, and printed under the name
"Uttar Kapur Chand & Sons." On the other side, this gives the government complete
control over textbook publishing, printing, and sale. The petition was submitted to
 RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB

challenge the education department's notification on the omission of "publishers" under

Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners' arguments were supported by a variety of
grounds. To begin, the petitioners claimed that the activities of the government to have a
monopoly should be conformed to Article 19 (6) of the constitution by law rather than
executive power. Finally, the government should offer compensation for damages under
Article 31 for violations of basic constitutional rights. The petitioner contended that
there is a separation of powers among the three branches of government, namely the
executive, legislature, and judiciary.

REASONING

The Court is opposed to creating a definition of the constitution because it is impossible

to do so. It said that the constitution does not promote strict separation of powers, but
that all branches of government have distinct functions. The court also suggests that the
executive does not necessarily need a legislative permission to operate in a certain way.
It asserted that conceptions evolve with the passage of time. In current times, a
particular definition of the executive and its authority might impede the operation of the
state, since it is a welfare state whose tasks are to respond to the needs of the people.

The Court dismissed the petitioner's claim that the state infringed his fundamental
rights under Article 19(6) to practice any profession or carry on any employment, trade,
or business. The court contrasted this to incidental loss or profit in commerce and trade,
where a person whose products are not purchased by buyers cannot claim that his basic
rights are violated. After all, the entire point of this was to nationalize textbooks, with
the education department approving them after assessment. It is the publishers'
responsibility to do their best by adhering to the department's principles or guidelines in
order to have their books chosen. As a result, the court concludes that there is no breach
of basic rights. The court underlines that publishers have the right to continue
publishing books and operating their businesses. The rejected texts that are not taught
in schools have no effect on basic rights. As a result, the petitioner's second claim was
likewise rejected.
 RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Ram Jawayya v State of Punjab is still a significant case in constitutional law because it
examines the complexities and scope of separation of powers in the Indian context while
interpreting separation of powers in light of the Indian Constitution's federal structure.
The court emphasized that, in view of the rising need for a paradigm shift in the state's
role, significant adjustments in the interpretation and composition of executive powers
are necessary. While deliberating on this concept, the court of law concluded that the
executive body must now be capable of carrying out its responsibilities without the help
of a legislative body.

Because of the changing times, it was essential to redefine the state's authority and
functions, shifting away from the traditional ones, which included the defense of the
state, its citizens, and its territory against both external and internal adversaries.
According to the Supreme Court, the contemporary understanding of government
operations involves social welfare as an intrinsic component. As a consequence, the
Court decided that the executive, in carrying out its duties, does not need any particular
legislation to authorise the action, but rather must simply follow the protocol, which
includes a description of the objective of the financial appropriation. As a result, the
Court distinguished clearly between the capacities of the various organs while admitting
the possibility of overlap between the actions done by specific organs in the exercise of
their functions. The Court decided that, while one state organ cannot usurp or infringe
on another's essential functions, it may engage in incidental operations of the latter.

CONCLUSION

The court correctly stated that because social welfare has become intrinsic to modern
state, it is proper for the executive and its administrative agencies to take responsibility
for bringing necessary regulations and policies that address the changing needs and
growth of the society in various aspects. As a result, the administrative powers of the
government can perform a variety of functions. It is not always advantageous to wait for
 RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB

particular legislation for executive acts because the legislative process itself is lengthy,
and it is also for situations of emergent requirements as long as it does not infringe on
individuals' basic rights. If the administration violates basic rights, the judiciary has the
authority to examine its actions. In the current instance, the court correctly said that
there was no infringement of fundamental rights because the scenario was similar to
that of losses and profits that most merchants and businesspeople faced in the regular
course of business. The court acknowledged that there is a strong separation of powers
in the Indian constitution, which might impede the smooth running of the government.
This demonstrates the need of collaboration across all government departments.
Delegation from the legislature allows the executive to legislate. Another issue is that it
gets problematic when the same person who created the rules also works as prosecutor
and decides on breaches. After all, the notion of division of powers exists to prevent the
general overlap of authorities.