1986 (5) TMI 271 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and authority of respondents to issue the impugned circular.
2. Validity of the circular without being traceable to any law.
3. Executive powers and their limits concerning trade regulation.
4. Preservation of traditional crafts versus modern manufacturing techniques.
5. Reasonableness and arbitrariness of the restriction under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
6. Public interest and the justification of the restriction under Article 19(6).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Authority of Respondents:
The primary issue raised by the petitioners was whether the Director or General Manager of Industries had the jurisdiction to issue the circular restricting the manufacture of copper utensils by machine. The court examined whether the respondents had the competence to impose such restrictions. It was argued that respondents 2 and 3 had no authority to curtail the petitioners' right to conduct business. The court concluded that while respondents 2 and 3 could regulate the business they had permitted, they could not impose prohibitive restrictions without proper jurisdiction, making the circular ultra vires.

2. Validity of the Circular Without Legal Basis:
The petitioners contended that the circular was invalid as it was not traceable to any law or rule. The court affirmed that any restriction on trade must be backed by a legislative enactment or valid executive order. Since the impugned circular was not issued under any specific law or rule, it lacked legal validity. The court emphasized that executive instructions must remain within the bounds of the law and cannot arbitrarily restrict fundamental rights.

3. Executive Powers and Trade Regulation:
The court discussed the scope of the State's executive powers to regulate trade. It acknowledged that the State has inherent power to issue instructions for matters within its legislative competence, provided such instructions do not violate Article 19(1)(g) and are saved by Article 19(6). However, the court held that the executive's power to regulate trade must be reasonable and in the public interest. The impugned circular was found to be an overreach of executive authority as it imposed an outright prohibition rather than a regulation.

4. Preservation of Traditional Crafts vs. Modern Techniques:
The respondents justified the circular on the grounds of preserving the traditional art of 'KANDKARI' copper utensils, arguing that machine-made utensils threatened the cottage industry and the livelihood of artisans. The court noted that while the preservation of traditional crafts is important, the State's directive principles also emphasize modernizing production techniques. The court found that the circular's blanket prohibition on machine-made utensils was not a balanced approach and did not align with the directive principles of promoting both traditional and modern techniques.

5. Reasonableness and Arbitrariness of the Restriction:
The court assessed whether the restriction was reasonable and non-arbitrary under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g). It concluded that the circular was arbitrary and lacked a clear rationale. The respondents failed to provide detailed data or evidence showing how machine-made utensils harmed the public interest or the traditional craft. The court emphasized that any restriction must be justified with concrete reasons and must not be arbitrary or discriminatory.

6. Public Interest and Justification Under Article 19(6):
The court scrutinized whether the restriction was in the public interest and justified under Article 19(6). It found that the respondents did not adequately demonstrate how the prohibition served the public interest. The court highlighted that merely stating the potential impact on artisans without substantial evidence was insufficient. The circular did not meet the criteria of reasonableness and public interest required to justify a restriction under Article 19(6).

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the impugned circular issued by respondents 2 and 3 was without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g). It failed to meet the requirements of Article 19(6) and did not serve a clear public interest. Consequently, the circular was struck down as unconstitutional, and the writ petitions were allowed. The court reiterated that any future restrictions must conform to constitutional guarantees and be justified with clear reasons.