Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Restriction on fundamental Rights including Prohibition. _ Before the Constitution Bench of five learned Judges, the question whether restriction on fundamental rights includes their prohibition, fell for consideration squarely. On different dates prior to April 3, 1958, the petitioners in that case had entered into contracts of purchase of copper with importers at Bombay and Calcutta, but before they could take delivery from the importers, the Government of India in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, issued on April 2, 1958 Non-ferrous Metal Control Order, 1958. Clause (3) of the Order provided that no person shall sell or purchase any non-ferrous metal at a price which exceeded the amount represented by an addition of3. 5 per cent to its landed cost, while clause (4) prohibited any person from acquiring any non-ferrous metal except under and in accordance with the permit issued in that behalf by the Controller in accordance with such principles as the Central Government may from time to time specify. No such principles were, however, published in the gazette nor laid before the Houses of Parliament. The Court held that the word 'restriction' in Article 19(5) and (6) of the Constitution includes cases of prohibition also. Where the restriction reaches the stage of total restraint of rights, special care has to be taken by the courts to see that the test of reasonableness is satisfied by considering the question in the background of the facts and circumstances under which the Order was made, taking into account the nature of the evil that was sought to be remedied by such law, the ratio of the harm caused to individual citizens by the proposed remedy, the beneficial effect reasonably expected to result to the general public, and whether the restraint caused by the law was more than what was necessary in the interests of the general public. The Court, in this connection referred to 3 The prohibition, according to the Court, has to be treated as only a kind of restriction. The Court then observed as follows: "After Article 19( 1) has conferred on the citizen the several rights set out in its seven sub clauses, action is at once taken by the Constitution in clauses 2 to 6 to keep the way of social control free from unreasonable impediment. The raison d'etre of a State being the welfare of the members of the State by suitable legislation and appropriate admini- stration, the whole purpose of the creation of the State would be frustrated if the confer- ment of these seven rights would result in cessation of legislation in the extensive fields where these seven rights operate. But without the saving provisions that would be the exact result of the Article 13 of the Constitution. It was to guard against this position that the Constitution provided in its clauses 2 to 6 that even in the fields of these rights new laws might be made and old laws would operate where this was necessary for general welfare. Laws imposing reasonable restriction on the exercise of the rights are saved by clause 2 in respect of rights under sub. clause (a) where the restrictions are' 'in the interests of the security of the State;" and of other matters mentioned therein; by clause 3 in respect of the rights conferred by sub. clause (b) where the restrictions are "in the interest of the public order; by clauses 4, 5 and 6 in respect of the rights conferred by sub. clauses (c), (d), (e),-(f) and (g) the restrictions are "in the interest of the general public" - in clause 5 which is in respect of rights conferred by sub-clauses (d), (e) and (f) also where the restrictions are "for the protection of the interests of any scheduled tribe". But for these saving provisions such laws would have been void because of Article 13, which is in these words:- "All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency be void; (2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the con- travention, be void .... " As it was to remedy the harm that would otherwise be caused by the provisions of Article 13, that these saving provisions were made, it is proper to remember the words of Article 13 in interpreting the words' 'reasonable restrictions" on the exercise of the right as used in clause (2). It is reasonable to think that the makers of the Constitution considered the word' 'restriction" to be sufficiently wide to save laws' 'inconsistent" with Article 19( I), or "taking away the rights" conferred by the Article, provided this inconsistency or taking away was reasonable in the interests of the different matters mentioned in the clause. There can be no doubt therefore that they intended the word' 'restriction" to include cases of' 'prohibition" also. The contention that a law prohibiting the exercise of a fundamental right is in no case saved, cannot therefore be accepted .... "