How Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is important from the point of view of

an entrepreneur carrying any business.

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution deals with one of the Fundamental Rights given to the citizens of
this country, that is, Right to Freedom. Out of the seven sub-clauses under Article 19(1), it is sub-clause
(g) that deals with Right to Freedom of any entrepreneur in this country carrying any8 business of his
choice, that is, right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
However, the same freedom comes with certain restrictions as enumerated under Article 19(6) of the
Constitution and means that any business, trade or occupation that is unlawful or illegal in nature
cannot be practiced. 1 It is also important to note that the freedom encompassed through this Article
does not at all mean that the government or the state shall procure market or consumers for any
business/businessmen or make any trade lucrative or productive in nature.2 This Article also does come
into play if someone carries any business at an unlawful place as citizens cannot avail fundamental rights
in place where unlawfulness or illegality has a play. 3

Meaning of the term ‘Business’ its aspect under Article 19(1) (g) and 19(6) of the Indian
Constitution.

 Section 10(3) (a) (iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act of
1960 has the term ‘business’ defined under it so as to include even the practice of law by an
advocate as business. This makes it very clear that the term ‘business’ is to be interpreted and
applied in regard and context to the act or law where it is used specifically and not in the
context of other legal statutes or in a manner which is far away from the purpose and meaning
of the context of the statute so mentioned.4
 Section 10 of the Indian Income Tax Act , 1922 mentions that “Business includes any trade,
commerce or manufacture or any profession or vocation, calling an immediate task or objective;
a commercial or industrial enterprise; and means practically anything which is in occupation
distinguished from pleasure”.

Scope of Article 19(1) (g):

Article 19(1) (g) gives every citizen the right to carry on any business or practice any profession of
his/her choice but does not take care of the choice of a citizen to be at particular position in a
particular job or procurement of a successful market and conditions for business of a businessman.
In Fertilizer Corporation v. Union of India5, the employees challenged the validity of sale of certain
equipments and plants putting forth the argument that the same will deprive them of their
employment and their constitutional right under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. The Court held

1
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union, Sindri v. UOI; AIR 1981 SC 344.
2
Chaitanya Prakesh v. Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan; 1960 Raj L.W. 209.
3
State of Gujarat v. Dharamdass; AIR 1982 SC 781
4
The definition given under this named Act is an inclusive one. The words in Section 9(1) and 163 of the Act are
clear enough for inclusion of all heads of income mentioned in section 14 of the Act. It does not restrict itself to
acts of trade and manufacture only but extends to a self-made profession that goes on for a fairly long time.
5
Fertilizer Corporation v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344.
 that Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution does not protect the right to work in a particular post or job
and also cannot be enforced against loss of job or removal from any service.

However, it is important to note that that all the Fundamental Rights including the Right to Freedom
under Article 19 is not available to foreigners or people from other countries.

To balance out the freedom under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution, Article 19(6) puts up certain
‘reasonable restrictions’ the requirement of which are as follows:

 The reasonableness of the restriction upon the fundamental right to trade and
 The measurement of the reasonableness being the compelling need to promote the
interests of the general public.

Basically, the clause six of Article 19 brings forth three major considerations namely:

 Any law imposing rights under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution can be made by the State in
the interests of the general public.
 Any law relating to professional or technical qualifications necessarily required for carrying on
any occupation, trade or business or practicing any profession can also be made by the State.
 And law in relation to creation of State Monopoly can also be made by the State.

However, this Article does not at all give any power to the State to impose unreasonable restrictions and
that too in an arbitrary manner.

It is important to note that the phrase ‘in the interest of general public’ can be interpreted in many
forms and is therefore, very important from the point of view of any entrepreneur carrying on any
business in the country. For instance, an entrepreneur thinking of starting a Liquor Business. In a case
on similar lines, Nashirwar6 liquor trading case, the interpretation given by the Honorable Supreme
Court was that the citizen in question did not have any inherent right to practice the liquor trade and is
also against the principles of public policy and also that the State through Article 19(6) and Directive
Principles of State Policy has the right to regulate business opportunities of any entrepreneur.

Similarly, in a different case7, the Supreme Court held that the State’s restriction of not allowing an
entrepreneur who wanted to carry on a business of selling eggs in the holy city of Rishikesh, was a
reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) and hence, cannot be challenged under Article 19(1) (g) of the
Constitution.

The Court while imposing any restriction on any businessmen for carrying any business is very cautious
of not crossing the line of right to freedom of any citizen. In Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti
Kuresh Jamat8, the Supreme Court upheld the ban imposed on the entrepreneurs of cow slaughter in
the city of Ahemdabad by the Municipal Corporation, Ahemdabad during nine days of Jain Festival
citing it as a reasonable restriction.

The entrepreneur thus has to take care of the fact that his business plan and purpose should conform to
public welfare at large and should in no way be anti-social, usurious and unscrupulous. 9

6
Nashirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 1368.
7
Om Prakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 402.
8
Hinsa Virodhak Sangh v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat, AIR 2008 SC 1982.
9
Fatechand v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1825
State Monopoly:
Article 19(6) (ii) talks of restriction based on State Monopoly and every entrepreneur has to take care of
this also while carrying on any business. Under this clause, the State can completely or partially exclude
citizens from carrying on any business or indulging into any trade as the State may deem fit and
reasonable. In Akdasi Padhan v. State of Orissa10, certain points qualifying as reasonable tests were laid
down by the Supreme Court:

 The Law relating to State Monopoly should be in direct regard and reference to monopoly
creation.
 No other provisions created in furtherance of the same should be incidental, helpful or
subsidiary to the operation of monopoly.

In the above named case, the State tried creating monopoly over sale of Kendu leaves in the state of
Orissa through the Orissa Kendu Leave (Control Act), 1961 by proposing that the prices of kendu
leaves would be fixed solely by the government only and not by any entrepreneur and that purchase
and transport of the said kendu leaves could only be done by government or its officers and
independent agents so authorized. The Supreme Court upheld the first rule but declared the second
one invalid on the grounds that it did not create any direct nexus between the law so created and
the purpose of monopoly and hence, was unreasonable.

When the Code guides to have certain professional and technical requirements completed to
practice certain trade or business or profession.
Article 19(6) (i) gives power to the State to make certain laws making it compulsory for a person
who wants to carry a particular trade or business to possess some given professional and technical
know-how. For instance, recently the government has made it a rule that transport companies like
Ola and Uber should file for fresh license every third year to keep up their business which the Court
found to be reasonable in lieu of the fact that rules and policies need to be changed keeping in mind
public welfare and security and the said transport companies will be able to conform to the
changing standards through this new rule.

Conclusion:
Article 19 with its clauses and sub-clauses , that is, 19 (1) (g) and 19(6) is very important for any
entrepreneur carrying on any business in this country as this Article takes care of both the
entrepreneur and the public at the same time. It is balanced in a way which gives freedom to every
businessman to carry on any business or trade of his/her choices but also at the same time, keeps
check by imposing certain restrictions for reasons and grounds which are but obvious good.

10
Akasi Padhan v. State of Orissa, AIR 1963 SC 1047.