STATE ARTICLE 12

The general concept of fundamental rights

The rights that are basic to the advancement of the human race are called Fundamental Rights. All
other rights are derived from these rights as direct implications or application of their principles. It is
an accepted belief among the philosophers that these rights are nothing but "natural human rights",
which distinguish between humans and animals and which have been so instrumental in bringing
humans from the stone age to the present age. Among all, the right to life and liberty is considered to
be the most basic.
The history of legally enforceable fundamental rights probably starts from Magna Carta, which was a
list of rights extracted from Kind John by the people of England in 1214 AD. This was followed by the
"Bill of Rights" in 1689 in which Englishmen were given certain civil and political rights that could not
be taken away. Later on the French compiled the "Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen"
after the French Revolution in 1789.
The most important advancement in history of fundamental rights occurred when the USA
incorporated certain fundamental rights in the form on "Bill of Rights" in their constitution by the way
of first 10 amendments. These rights were deemed to be beyond the vagaries of politics. The
protection by the constitution meant that these rights could not be put to vote and were not
dependent on the whims of politicians or of the majority.
After this, nearly all democracies of the world have given a constitutional sanctity to certain inalienable
rights available to their citizens
Fundamental Rights in India
Technically speaking, the rights specified in Part III (Art 12 to 35) of the constitution are the
fundamental rights available to the citizens of India. In the case of Menaka Gandhi vs Union of India
AIR 1978, J. Bhagvati has said that these rights represent the values that are cherished by the people
of this country since the vedic ages and are calculated to protect the dignity of individual and to create
conditions in which every human being is able to develop his personality to the fullest. These rights are
necessary for a human being for attaining full social, intellectual, and spiritual status.
PART III talks about the fundamental rights such as:
Right to Equality (Article 14 18)
Right to Freedom (Article 19 22)
Right against Exploitation (Article 23 24)
Right to freedom of Religion (Article 25 28)
Cultural and Educational Right (Article 29 30)
Right to Constitution Right (Article 32)
Art. 19(1)a 19(1)g and Art. 19(2) places reasonable restriction on rights. Our rights are not absolute
rights.
Purpose of Article 12 and Article 13
In enacting fundamental rights in part III of our Constitution, the founding fathers showed that they
had the will, and they were ready to adopt the means to confer legally enforceable fundamental rights.
First, against whom were the fundamental rights to be enforced? Broadly speaking, against the
State, not as ordinary understood but as widely defined by Art. 12.[viii]
Secondly, against what activity were fundamental rights enforceable? They were enforceable against
laws and executive actions, which violated fundamental rights. In brief, all laws contravening and/or
violating fundamental rights were declared to be pro tantovoid as defined in Art. 13.[ix]
Article 12 of the Constitution of India
Article 12 is the first Article in Part III of the Constitution of India. It states that:
Definition in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and
Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other
authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.[x]

Article 12 gives an extended significance to the term state. Art 12 clarifies that the term state
occurring in Art 13(2), or any other provision concerning Fundamental Rights, has an expansive
meaning.
According to Art. 12, the term state includes
The Government and Parliament of India;
The Government and the Legislature of a State;
All local authorities; and
Other authorities within the territory of India, or under the control of the Central Government.
It has been pointed out at the outset that the device of guaranteeing fundamental rights by a Bill of
Rights in a written Constitution was to protect the individual from governmental aggression and not
from aggression by another individual,[xi] for which remedies under ordinary law were sufficient. It was
to bind the state itself, the makers of laws, that fundamental rights have their origin.[xii]
Scope of Article 12:
The definition of Article 12 is only for the purpose of application of the provisions contained in Part III. It
cannot be used to interpret any provision outside Part III, e.g., Art. 311.[xiii] Within the territory of India
or under the control of the Government of India is limited in its application only to Part III and by virtue
of Art. 36, to Part IV: it does not extend to other provisions of the Constitution and hence a juristic
entity which may be a State for the purpose of Part III and Part IV would not be so for the purpose of
Part XIV or any other provisions of the Constitution.[xiv]
Hence, even though a body of persons may not constitute State within the instant definition, a writ
under Art. 226 may lie against it on the non-constitutional grounds or on ground of contravention of
some provisions of theConstitution outside Part III, e.g., where such body has a public duty to perform
or where its acts are supported by the State or public officials.
,the definition of State in Art. 12 will include not only the Executive and Legislative[xix] organs of the
Union and the States, but also local bodies (such as municipal authorities) as well as other
authorities,[xx] which include the instrumentalities and agencies of the State, or bodies or
institutions which discharge public functions of a governmental character,[xxi] or in other words, it
comprises all acts which can be brought within the fold of State action.
Definition of Authority:
Literally authority means a person or a body exercising power,[xxiii] or having a legal right to
command and be obeyed.[xxiv]
In Art. 12 State has not been defined. It is merely an inclusive definition. It includes all the
authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India
Local Authorities
A local authority having a legal grievance may be able to take out a writ. Thus, a writ was issued on
the petition of a local authority against a public utility concern, for the latters failure to fulfil its
statutory obligation to supply power to the local authority, a consumer;
Case Law:
Corporation of City of Nagpur v. N.E.L & Power Co., AIR 1958 Bom 498

OTHER AUTHORITIES
Laying down the propositions in Electricity Board, Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal case, the Supreme Court held
that other authorities would include all authorities created by the Constitution or statute on which
powers are conferred by law. It was not necessary that the statutory authority should be engaged in
performing government or sovereign functions

List of other authorities coming under Art. 12

List of other authorities coming under Art. 12:
There is no common feature running through the various bodies,[xxxv] which have been held to be
covered by the expression other authorities.
The expression refers to
Instrumentalities or agencies[xxxvi] of the Government and Government Departments.[xxxvii] But
every instrumentality of Government is not necessarily a Governmental Department.[xxxviii]
Every type of public authority, exercising statutory powers,[xxxix] whether such powers are
governmental or quasi-governmental or non-governmental, and whether such authority is under the
control of government or not, and even though it may be engaged in carrying out some activities in
nature of trade or commerce,[xl] e.g., A board,[xli] a University,[xlii] the Chief Justice of High Court,
[xliii] having the power to issue rules, bye-laws or regulations having the force of law or the power to
make statutory appointments; a public corporation,[xliv] a government undertaking.[xlv]
An authority set under a statute[xlvi] for the purpose of administering a law enacted by the legislature,
including those vested with a duty to make decisions in order to implement them.[xlvii]
A private body or a company,[xlviii]
Society registered under the Societies Registration Act.[xlix]
Corporation set up under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951.[l]
But a non-statutory body, exercising no statutory powers[li] is not a State, e.g.,
CASE LAWS REALTING TO STATE
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487
it has been held that a sociey registered under the society registration act is an agency or
instrumentality its composition is determined by the govt . the expenses of the society are provided by
the central govt . thus the govt has power to appoint and remove the society therefore they arr the
state .
CHANDRA MOHAN KHANNA VS NCERT
it has been declared that NCERT is not a state
ZEE TELEFILMS VS UOI
BCCI IS NOT A STATE
Doctrine of Severability
Article 13 of the Indian Constitution provides for Doctrine of Severability which states that All laws in
force in India before the commencement of Constitution shall be void in so far they are inconsistent
with the provisions of the Constitution.
A law becomes invalid only to the extent to which it is inconsistent with the fundamental rights. So
only that part of the law will be declared invalid which is inconsistent, and the rest of the law will
stand. However, on this point a clarification has been made by the courts that invalid part of the law
shall be severed and declared invalid if really it is severable, i.e if after separating the invalid part the
valid part is capable of giving effect to the legislatures
intent, then only it will survive, otherwise the court shall declare the entire law as invalid.
Case Laws:
A.K. Gopalan v. State 0f Madras held that the preventive detention minus section 14 was valid as the
omission of the Section 14 from the Act will not change the nature and object of the Act and therefore
the rest of the Act will remain valid and effective.
D.S. Nakara v. Union of India
the Act remained valid while the invalid portion of it was declared invalid because it was severable
from the rest of the Act.
R.M.D.C. v.Union of India, AIR 1957 S.c. 628

1. The intention of the legislature is the determining factor in determining whether the valid parts of a
statue are severable from the invalid parts.
2. If the valid and invalid provisions are so inextricably mixed up so that they cannot be separated
from the other, then the invalidity of a portion must result in the invalidity of the Act in its entirety.
3. Even when the provisions which are invalid, are distinct and separate from those which are invalid if
they form part of a single scheme which is intended to be operative as a whole, then also the invalidity
of a part will result in the failure of the whole.
4. If after the invalid portion is expunged from the Statute what remains cannot be enforced without
making alterations and modifications therein, then the whole of it must be stuck down as void as
otherwise it will amount to judicial legislation.
Doctrine of Eclipse
It states that an existing law which is inconsistent with a fundamental right become inoperative from
the date of the commencement of the constitution, it cannot be accepted as dead altogether. The
Doctrine of Eclipse is based on the principle that a law which violates fundamental rights, is not nullity
or void ab initio but becomes, only unenforceable i.e. remains in a moribund condition. It is overshadowed by the fundamental rights and remains dormant, but it is not dead. .
Deep Chand vs. State of UP SC AIR 1959
Doctrine of Eclipse does not apply to Post-Constitutional law because such a law is void ab initio
State of Gujarat vs. Ambica Mills SC AIR 1974 Overruled Deep Chands case and held that Doctrine
of Eclipse is
applicable to non-citizens.
Post-Constitution laws, which are inconsistent, shall be void ab initio:
Art. 13(2) provides that any law made by any legislature or other authority after the commencement of
the Constitution, which contravenes any of the fundamental rights included in Part III of the
Constitution shall, to the extend of the contravention, be void.
MEANING OF LAW = KESHAVANADNA BHARTI ART 13
RIGHT TO EQUALITY ARTICLE 14-18
Right to equality means the absence of legal discrimination against any one individual, group, class or
race. In earlier times certain classes possessed special privileges or were judged by special law.
The modem tendency is to enforce the same law over all persons in the State and to give all persons
equal rights and privileges in the protection of their civil liberties. Democracy can only exist and
flourish in a society of equals.
The Constitution of India makes social and civil equality the bedrock of Indian polity. It guarantees
equality of all persons before the law, prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex
or place of birth as between citizens, and abolishes untouchability on the one hand and titles on the
other. The concept of equality of all persons before the law has a significant bearing and it is one of the
ingredients of what Dicey calls the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law means three things with Dicey. It
means, in the first place, the absolute supremacy of law
Article 14 Equality before law
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws
within the territory of India. Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or
place of birth.
It is the core article under Right to Equality. It deals with two kinds of rights. It states that the State
shall not deny to any person

Right to equality before the law.

Right to Equal Protection before the law.
1. Right to Equality before the law
It is a negative concept because it means that no man is above the law or in other words all individuals
are subject to the Law of the land. Rule of law means the absolute supremacy of ordinary law of land
as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power of the ruler.
2. Equal protection before Law
It means equality of treatment in equal circumstances. Among equals the law shall be equal and
equally administered. The like should be treated alike. All the persons placed in equal circumstances
shall be treated similarly. Therefore, it ensures equality among equals. It does not mean inequality
among equals.
= It allows State to classify individuals on a reasonable basis into similar groups. Once such a
classification is made, the law shall apply equally among all the people within a group. Then no person
within a group shall be treated differently. However, the State is free to discriminate people between
the groups.
CASE LAW Vijay lakshmi vs punjab university 2003 sc 440
in this case the policy of the govt was to appoint only woman as a college principal i womans college a
male teacher challenges the college policy and argues that such a rule is discrimatory on the grounds
of sex it was held that it is not violative of article 14 15(3) on the grounds of reasonable clasification
Art 15 states that the state shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race,
caste sex, place of birth or any of them. This article ordains that no citizen shall be denied
access to shops, public restaurants, hotels or places of public entertainment or
the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resorts maintained wholly or partly
out of state funds.
This article however does not forbid the state from making special provisions for women and children.
The state is equally free to make special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes and
for the scheduled castes and tribes
Art. 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The article states that:
There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment
to any office under the state. The article also forbids discrimination on grounds only of religion, race,
caste, sex, descent, and place of birth or any of them in matters of public employment. There are five
exceptions to prohibition of discrimination under Art. 16. (I) The Parliament may lay down residence
qualification for some appointments in states.
The state may reserve some appointments for backward classes if they are not adequately
represented in the state services.
Offices in the religious institutions may be kept reserved for the followers of the religion concerned.
Posts in the state services may be kept reserved for the scheduled castes and tribes.
Finally Art. 16 forbid discrimination in matters of state employment only on the grounds stated in the
article itself. It does not forbid preferential treatment on other grounds such as efficiency or mercy.
Art. 17 of the constitution says, Untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden.
The position is further fortified by the Abolition of the Untouchability Act of 1955. Though the term
untouchability has not been defined in either the constitution or the Act of 1955, practice of
untouchability in any form is strictly forbidden. Refusing admission to public institutions like schools
and hospitals on grounds of untouchability is a punishable crime.
Art. 18 forbid titles except military or academic distinctions. Title from foreign governments such as
knighthood is forbidden. However honors conferred by the government of India such as Bharat Ratna
or Podmashri etc. are not titles but are only recognition of meritorious services. Right to equality in all
its forms are available to Indian constitutional remedies against the violation of fundamental right to
equality.
However the President is empowered to suspend the right during the pendency of a National
Emergency under Art 352 of the constitution

aricle 15 BP joshi v st of madhya bharat Air 1960 sc 1208

the rules of a medical college provided that non residents of the state would have to pay the capitation
fee for admision whereas the residents would not . sc held that the discrimainton is based on the place
of residents not on the place of birth hence it did not violates the art 15(1)
A K Gopalan vs. State of Madras sc AIR 1950
A communist leader was detained under Preventive Detention Act,
1950.
1. Fundamental Rights are not absolute.2. Rights in Part III are mutually exclusive and that liberty in Art
19
Lindsley v Natural Carbonic Gas Co, US SC 1910 and Chiranjit Lal v Union of India SC AIR 1951 are
important cases that illustrate the concept of equal protection of the laws. In these cases, the SC of
both the countries held that all persons similarly circumstanced should be treated equally. Only like
should be treated alike and thus a reasonable classification can be done.
Several cases such as Randhir Singh vs Union of India 1982 (Equal pay for equal work) illustrate the
principle of equality.
The SC judgment in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India AIR 1993 incorporates the element of fairness in
dealing with inequalities in the society, while balancing the aspirations of the socially forward classes.
doctrine of reasonalble clasification
The Test of Reasonable Classification says that the classification must be based upon intelligible
differentia that distinguishes persons or things that are grouped from others that are left out of the
group. This differentia must have a rational relation to the object of classification. There should be a
relation between the differentiations to the object of the classification. If there are no such relations,
the reasonable classification would fail. For example denial of grant to a private college teaching law
while giving grant to other private colleges teaching other subjects is not permissible. However,
reduction of age from 58 years to 55 years is permissible.
hence
there is a necessity of the reasonable classification for the society to progress.
whereas Article 14 forbids class legislation. Class legislation makes an improper discrimination by
conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons.
PRINCIPLE OF ABSENCE OF ARBITRARINESS
Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification for
its purposeful nature. Therefore, the reasonable and purposeful classification can be made by
Legislature. But there should be absence of arbitrariness while making this classification and certain
parameters should be laid down for the same. It should comply with the following conditions to render
the same as validThings on which classification is made, must be different in fact;
There must be difference between the two things classified, and such difference must have some
connection and such difference must have some relation with the purpose with regard to the
classification made.
Thus what Article 14 forbids is class-legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification. The
classification however must not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive but must be based on some real
and substantial foundation involving a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the Legislation. Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without any justifiable
reasonings.
In Chiranjeet Lal Chaudhary v/s Union of India, the Court observed that the Legislature is within its
power to determine and classify the subject of its laws, and if equal treatment in equal circumstances
is given, then there is no denial of equal protection before the Law.
LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION
it is not a legal right. It is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from a
promise or established practice. The term 'established practice' refers to a regular, consistent
predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. The expectation
should be legitimate, that is, reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic

or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be a legitimate

expectation. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as such. It is a concept fashioned by courts, for
judicial review of administrative action. It is procedural in character based on the requirement of a
higher degree of fairness in administrative action, as a consequence of the promise made, or practice
established."
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM ARTICLE 19
Article 19: Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc Article 19 is the most
important and key article which embodies the basic freedoms. Article 19(1) provides that
all citizens shall have the right- (originally 7, now 6) to freedom of speech and expression;
to assemble peaceably and without arms;
to form associations or unions;
to move freely throughout the territory of India;
to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; omitted by 44thamendment act. (it was right to
acquire, hold and dispose of property) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade
or business. However, Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. As of now, there are 8
restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. These are in respect of the sovereignty and
integrity of the country. These 8 restrictions were: Security of the state Friendly relations with foreign
states Public Order Decency or morality Contempt of Court Defamation Incitement to offence
Sovereignty and integrity of India. These 8 restrictions were embodied in their current form in the
constitution First Amendment Bill 1951, this was necessitated by Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras
(1950). In this case the entry and circulation of the English journal Cross Road, printed and published
in Bombay, was banned by the Government of Madras. The Supreme court held in this case that,
unless a law restricting the freedom of speech and expression were directed solely against the
undermining of the security of the state or its overthrow, the law could not be held a reasonable
restriction though it sought to impose a restraint for the maintenance of public order. When a
proclamation of emergency is made under article 352, article 19 itself remains suspended. Freedom of
Speech and Expression Article 19 of the constitution provides freedom of speech which is the right to
express ones opinion freely without any fear through oral / written / electronic/ broadcasting / press.
The Constitution does not make any special / specific reference to the Freedom of Press. The
protagonists of the free Press called it a serious lapse of the Drafting committee. However, the
freedom of expression includes freedom of press. Dr. Ambedkar in this context had said on speaking
behalf of the Drafting Committee that the press had no special rights which are not to be given to an
individual or a citizen. Dr. Ambedkar further said that the editors or managers of press are all citizens
of the country and when they chose to write in newspapers they are merely expressing their right of
expression. So, the word expression covers the Press. In modern times it covers the blogs and
websites too. Some landmark Supreme Court Judgments regarding the Freedom of Expression Romesh
Thapar v. State of Madras, (1950): Freedom of speech and of the press laid at the foundation of all
democratic organizations, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential for the
proper functioning of the process of popular government, is possible.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978): Freedom of speech and expression has no geographical
limitation and it carries with it the right of a citizen to gather information and to exchange thought with
others not only in India but abroad also.
Prabha Dutt v. Union of India ((1982) : Supreme Court directed the Superintendent of Tihar Jail to
allow representatives of a few newspapers to interview Ranga and Billa, the death sentence convicts,
as they wanted to be interviewed.
Indian Express v. Union of India (1985):Press plays a very significant role in the democratic
machinery. The courts have duty to uphold the freedom of press and invalidate all laws and
administrative actions that abridge that freedom.
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of
Bengal(Cricket Association) (1995):Every citizen has a fundamental right to impart as well as
receive information through the electronic media. It ruled that frequencies or airwaves are public
property, and that the government enjoys no monopoly over broadcasting. Court ordered the
government to take immediate steps to set up an independent and autonomous public authority to
regulate frequencies. Freedom of speech and expression (Article 19 .1 & 19.2) played an important role
in this decision.
Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms (2002):One-sided information, disinformation,
misinformation and non information, all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes
democracy a farce. Freedom of speech and expression includes right to impart and receive information
which includes freedom to hold opinions.

freedom of Association The constitution declares that all citizens will have the right to form
associations and unions. Freedom of Movement The freedom of movement is guaranteed by the
constitution and citizens can move from one state to another and anywhere within a state. A person
free to move from any point to any point within the countrys territories. There are certain exceptions
such as Scheduled Tribes areas and army areas. Freedom of Residence An Indian Citizen is free to
reside in any state except Jammu & Kashmir. Again this is subject to certain restrictions. Freedom of
Trade & occupation The constitution of India guarantees each of its citizen to do trade , occupation or
business anywhere in the country.
CASE law = UOI vs NAveen JINDAL = FLAG CASE
Freedom of Press In Indian Constitution
The Freedom of the Press is nowhere mentioned in the Indian constitution. The Right to Freedom of
Speech and Expression is provided in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. It is believed that Freedom
of Speech and Expression in Article 19 of the Indian constitution include freedom of the press.
Citizens of India are guaranteed the right of freedom of speech and expression. Every Indian, including
press reporters, can express ideas and views freely through press and public platform.
Freedom of expression enables one to express ones own voices as well as those of others. But
freedom of the press must be subject to those restrictions which apply to the freedom of speech and
expression. The restrictions mentioned in Article 19 are defamation, contempt of court, decency or
morality, security of the state, friendly relations with other states, incitement to an offence, public
order and maintenance of the sovereignty and integrity of India.
The status of freedom of the press is the same as that of an ordinary citizen. The press cannot claim
any immunity from taxation, is subject to the same laws regulating industrial relations, and press
employees are subject to the same laws regulating industrial employment.
Again, the press enjoys normal freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19 of Indian Constitution.
Hence no law can be passed to abridge its freedom of expression, cannot be subjected to excessive or
prohibitive burdens to curtail its circulation and cannot be subjected to specific tax deliberately
imposed to limit circulation of information. In gist, the constitution does not grant any power to the
government to impose arbitrary restrictions on the press. Politicians in power often feel very tempted
to pass laws restricting press freedom, to withhold information likely to generate unfavorable reactions
among the people.
In 1976, during the emergency, the Parliament enacted the Prevention of Publication of Objectionable
Matter Act. The Janata Government in 1978 repealed the Act. However, the 44th amendment adopted
in 1978 has given the Parliament substantial powers to regulate press freedom. A new article, Article
361A has been added to the constitution with this object in view.
The censorship of the Press is a very crucial and sensitive issue in every democracy. In general press
censorship is regarded as very unhealthy check on the freedom of free expression of views. In India,
the constitution does not specifically forbid press censorship. Hence only check on the state in
resorting to censorship is that it should be reasonable. Even this check on the government was not
there before the 1st amendment of the constitution in 1951. But in two cases, Brij Bhusan vs. the State
of Delhi and Ramesh Thapar vs. State of Madras, the Supreme Court held that censorship imposes
obvious restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. After the last amendment, censorship is
permitted if it is reasonable and if it is called for in the interest of public order.
Thus the present position is censorship is valid in times of emergency if it is reasonable and if in the
interest of public order. In times of emergency under Article 352 censorship is valid when Article 19
itself stands suspended under Article 358 of the constitution
REASONable RESTRICTIONS
Art 19 (2) says that nothing in Art 19 (1) (a) shall affect the operation of any law or prevent the state
from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on exercise of the right
conferred by the said clause in the interest of -

sovereignty and integrity of the country.

security of the state
friendly relations with foreign states.
public order
decency and morality
defamation
contempt of court
incitement of an offence.
Reasonable restriction means intelligent care and discussion that the restriction is not beyond what is
required for public interest. It should not be arbitrary and excessive. Further, the restriction can only be
imposed by law and not by executive or departmental decision.
Test of reasonable restrictions
Spanning several cases, SC has laid down the following guidelines :
It is the courts and not the legislature that will decide whether a law is reasonable or not.
Reasonable means that the law is not arbitrary and the restriction is not beyond what is required in
public interest. The time and duration of the restriction cannot be unlimited.
There is no fixed standard for reasonableness. Each case must be decided on its own merits.
The restriction must be reasonable from substantiative as well as procedural stand point.
Restrictions imposed due to implementation of Directive Principles may deemed to be reasonable
Ranjit Udeshi vs State of Mah. AIR 1965 SC : In this case, a bookseller was prohibited from selling book
containing obscene material