Administrative Law

Continuous Internal Assessment- 1

Case Analysis- Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur

and Ors. vs The State of Punjab

Submitted to- Ms. Vijayshree Dubey Pandey

Submitted by- Kumari Pragati (20213076)
Name- Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. vs The State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549
Date- 12 April, 1955
Facts

In this particular case, the petitioner, accompanied by five other individuals, was actively
involved in the enterprise of creating, producing, and distributing educational materials
intended for various scholastic levels, notably focusing on elementary and secondary school
resources within the boundaries of Punjab state. These endeavors were carried out under the
banner of "Uttar Chand Kapur and Sons." Their engagement in this endeavor was in
accordance with their lawful entitlement to conduct and engage in commercial activities,
fully within the parameters of legality.
The Education Department operating under the aegis of the Punjab state government
formulated a policy aimed at assuming control over the previously mentioned educational
resource trading enterprise, with the intention to nationalize this sphere of commerce. This
encompassed the facets of trade, publication, and printing of educational texts.
Apprised of these developments, the petitioners initiated a legal recourse by invoking Article
32 of the Indian Constitution. Their assertion was rooted in the claim that the process of
nationalizing the publishing and printing of educational materials intrinsically infringed upon
their constitutionally safeguarded right to engage in trade and commerce, as enshrined within
Article 19(1) (g) of the constitution. Their contention was that this policy shift, in effect,
displaced them from their longstanding involvement in this commercial domain. They
emphasized that this regulatory restriction had been imposed on them without the requisite
legislative foundation, thereby rendering the policy untenable. According to them, the
issuance of notifications alone, devoid of adherence to the stipulated requisites under Article
19(6), rendered the policy void and contrary to the principles of the constitution.
As a redressal, they sought the court to issue a writ of mandamus, thereby compelling the
state government to retract the aforementioned notifications and, consequently, halt the
policy's enforcement, so that they can re-establish their right to continue their engagement in
the educational materials trade without undue impediments
Issues
 What is the scope and extent of executive powers?
 Whether the government of a state has the power under the Constitution of India to
carry on a trade or business without any legislative sanction?
 Whether the said notifications violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners under
Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution or not?

Laws related to the case

 Article 19(1) (g) – Right to practice any profession or to carry out any occupation,
trade, or business by the citizens.
 Article 19(6) – Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the article 19 (1) shall affect the operation
of any existing law in so far 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 (g), or prevent the State from making any
law relating to, 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

Analysis
The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Mukharjea. In this ruling, the focus was on the
extent and boundaries of executive powers. The court concluded that attempting an
exhaustive definition of executive function isn't feasible. Article 73 of the Constitution was
referenced, dealing with the allocation of executive powers between the Union and the States.
It states that the executive power of the Union pertains to matters where Parliament holds
authoritative jurisdiction. This includes powers to enact laws and exercise rights, authority,
and jurisdiction aligned with agreements of the Government of India.
The Indian Constitution follows the principle of the 'doctrine of separation' of powers, which
distinguishes legislative, judicial, and executive roles. The executive's role is to implement
laws made by the legislature or oversee their enforcement. However, this separation isn't rigid
in the Indian Constitution. Different branches of government have distinct functions.
Executive power denotes the residual functions of government after excluding legislative and
judicial roles. As per the Constitution, the executive can exercise powers of subordinate
legislation when delegated by the legislature. Additionally, the executive can exercise judicial
functions if empowered. The Executive power of the Union, akin to the British Parliamentary
system, is vested in the President by Article 53(1). Article 75 establishes a Council of
Ministers led by the Prime Minister to advise the President, thus concentrating effective
executive powers with the Council. In States, the Governor holds a similar position, with the
Council of Ministers performing government functions.
Regarding business powers, it was noted that a modern state is expected to engage in
activities promoting social and economic welfare. The Allahabad High Court's decision in
Motilal v. Government of State of Uttar Pradesh was cited. It was held that executive powers
encompass all necessary for Constitution-driven objectives. The state can own and manage
property and engage in trade, similar to citizens, without violating others' rights or laws.
It was held that in this care, the petitioner’s Fundamental Rights had not been infringed under
Article 19(1)(g). There is no fundamental right of the petitioners in the fact that books printed
and published by them only should be prescribed as school textbooks and can’t be
discontinued in future once they are accepted.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, in this instance, underscored the concept of responsible governance and
bolstered the parliamentary system of government. Chief Justice Mukherjea, speaking on
behalf of the Supreme Court, articulated that our constitution had adopted the British model
of a Parliamentary Executive, where the President serves solely as a ceremonial or symbolic
leader of the executive branch, while the actual authority resides with the Council of
Ministers.
As per the Supreme Court's interpretation, the Indian Constitution does outline the respective
roles of the Legislature and the Executive, aiming to prevent one organ from encroaching
upon the fundamental functions of another. However, this demarcation isn't an inflexible
separation but rather signifies a system where power runs in parallel with varying degrees of
authority among the three branches. Each branch acts as a check on the others. Consequently,
the Executive can carry out administrative directives until the Legislature enacts relevant
laws.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Legislature had already allocated funds required for
publishing textbooks through the Appropriation Act. The government didn't need additional
authorization to engage in this endeavor, as it could fulfill its needs by forming contracts with
authors and other stakeholders. This action didn't violate private rights, as publishers retained
the freedom to produce books. Therefore, the government's involvement in publishing
textbooks without a specific legislated mandate was within the legitimate jurisdiction of the
Executive. The government was deemed capable of determining school textbooks within its
executive powers, as long as it respected the rights of all parties involved.