1

TRINITY INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF LAW

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY

Ms. Aishwarya Rhythm Jaiswal

Professor, TIPS BA.LLB 2021-2026 (SEM
4)

CASE STUDY
 2

Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur & Ors v. the State of Punjab
(1955) 2 SCR 225

STATEMENT OF FACTS

In this case, the petitioner, along with five others, was engaged in the business of preparing,
printing, and publications of textbooks for various school level classes, especially the primary
and secondary level books in the State of Punjab under the name of “Uttar Chand Kapur and
Sons”. It is done as per their right to carry out their own business and trade and is legally
valid. It was reported that the Education Department under the State government of Punjab
had come up with a policy on nationalizing this business of trading, publishing and printing
the textbooks, and the same was notified through different notifications for this purpose to
businessmen. Knowing this, the petitioners have filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution alleging that the act of nationalizing the publications and printings of books
would interfere with their right to freedom of trade and business under Article 19(1) (g) of the
constitution and had practically driven out them from this business. It was urged that such a
restriction has been laid on them without any proper legislative backings for such a policy,
and mere notifications not conforming to the requirements under Article 19(6) shall make the
policy invalid and unconstitutional. Thus, they sought the court to issue the writ of
mandamus, which would enable the state government to disable the said notifications.

ISSUES

 Whether the said notifications violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners under
Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution or not?
 Whether legislative backings are required for the purpose and do that needs to be
complied with as per article 19(6) or not?

JUDGMENT

The court observed and held as follows.

 3

With respect to the first question on whether there was a violation of fundamental rights of
the petitioners through the act by the state government, the court refused to accept the
petitioners argued that there was a violation of fundamental rights under article 19(1) (g). It
observed that, when it comes to school books, it is the school who should suggest the kind of
books, and it is not the right of publishers to insist the students or school for acceptance of
their books as textbooks. It noted that when a trader is lucky enough in the market, his goods
would be secured, but if he loses any such trade, then he or she shall not state that his or her
fundamental right to have the customers has been violated. Thus, it stated and held that the
scopes of such chances are incidental to each business, and there is no fundamental right in
the present case.

Lastly, With respect to the second issue, the court firstly the importance of articles 73 and
162 of the Indian Constitution as it deals with executive powers and the extent to which
parliament and state powers are executed. In that way, it was observed by the court that a
modern state should be expected to engage in all the activities that are required for the
welfare of the people of the country. It also observed that in order to carry on particular trade
or business, it is indeed required that special legislation is enacted for additional requirement
of powers other than what has been provided to an executive as per law. In that situation,
special legislation would be required to encroach upon the privacy rights, for that matter. As
the question of whether there was a violation of the fundamental rights of petitioners was
dismissed, it is also immaterial to state whether the government could, in a way, have powers
to establish a monopoly without law under article 19(6) of the constitution shall remain
immaterial as well.

Thus the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India.

CONCLUSION

No right is absolute in nature. This does not only apply to the citizens of the country but also
FFto the governing body such as administrative agencies and governments as well. This is
important to ensure that there is no arbitrariness during the administration of justice.
Similarly, article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution shall also be subject to restrictions
under 19(2). And it is also provided that whenever there is a question of public interests and
for the welfare of the people arises, the private rights are brought back little while interpreting
 4

the matter concerned. This article will look into one such issue where the private right was
said to have been infringed by the government. But, the court found otherwise and dismissed
the case.