Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution entails freedom of profession, trade, business and these

freedom mean that every citizen has the right to choose his own employment or to take up
any trade. The guarantee in Art. 19(1) (g) as comprehensive as possible and to include all
avenues and modes through which a person earns his livelihood.

The fundamental right shall also extends to a corporation

In Delhi Cloth and General Mills vs. Union of India, the Apex Court observed that
fundamental right conferred by Art. 19(1) (g), is a contentious issue whenever the petitioner
is an incorporated company but the law in this behalf is in a tenuous state. The law is in a
nebulous state because the Apex Court observed that a Corporation is not a citizen within the
comprehension of Article 19, and therefore a corporation or society could not complain of
denial of fundamental freedom guaranteed by Article 19 to a citizen of this country.

But a different note was struck in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, when it was held that a
measure executive or legislative may impair the rights of the company alone, and not of its
shareholders; it may impair the rights of the shareholders as well as of the company. The
Court in Bennett Coleman & Co. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, where after review of
the afore-mentioned decisions and several others, it was held that, “shareholders' rights are
equally and necessarily affected if the rights of the company are affected. The rights of
shareholders with regard to Article 19(1)(a) are projected and manifested by the newspapers
owned and controlled by the shareholders through the medium of the corporation.”. That
apart, the trend is in the direction of holding that in the matter of fundamental freedoms
guaranteed by Art. 19 the rights of a shareholder and the company which the shareholders
have formed are rather co extensive and the denial to one of the fundamental freedom would
be denial to the other.

The impugned Act imposes unreasonable restriction on Zayer India Ltd..

Duty of the state cannot be imposed on a citizen.

The Constitutional goals of the state cannot be extended by way of imposition of restriction
or regulation so as to impair the right of a citizen under Article 19(1) (g). Although
reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the exercise of such a right in terms of the
Constitutional scheme, the state cannot impose its own duties and obligations upon a citizen.

In this case ……. …………….. …….. are private parties with no obligation to upheld the
Constitutional duties which have been imposed on the state.

The Court cannot impose a restriction on the freedom of trade.

Moreover a ‘law’ as per this context, postulates a law which is otherwise valid. Hence, any
imposition, which restricts a citizen’s right to carry on an occupation, trade or business, but is
not authorised by law, cannot be covered by CI. (6) and must, accordingly, be held to be
invalid, being in contravention of CI (1) (g)1. Restrictions can be imposed by subordinate

1
Yasin Mohammad v. Town Area Committee, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 115.
legislation executive order2, such as a circular or policy decision in terms of Art. 162 of the
Constitution or otherwise. Such a law must be one enacted by the legislation3. For example, a
bye-law4 or order5 or rule6 which is ultra vires; or a rule7 or order8 which has not been duly
published9 or laid before Parliament10, as required by the statute, or a sales tax which
contravenes Art. 28611, cannot be saved by CI. (6).

It is further humbly stated that in order to constitute a ‘reasonable’ restriction under CI. (6),
both the law as well as any order made there under must satisfy the test of
reasonableness12. A restriction, to be permissible under Art. 19(6), has to be commensurate
with the danger posed13. The impugned restriction imposed by the NGO, in the instant case,
did not pass this test. Thus, the NGO’s plea may be set aside for being in violation of Article
19(1) (g).

2
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1995) I S.C.C. 574; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Registrar General,
Supreme Court of India, (1996) 3 S.C.C. 114.
3
State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh, (2006) 2 S.C.C. 545.
4
Yasin Mohammad v. Town Area Committee, supra note 37.
5
Vallinayagam Pillai, R. N. v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1952 Mad. 528.
6
State of Kerala v. Joseph, P. J., A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 296.
7
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 430.
8
Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of M.P., A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 403.
9
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, supra note 43.
10
11
12
13