Question

Given below is the statement of Legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any trade, occupation and business but Article 19 (6) empowers the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of public.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Having experienced an acute shortage of labour for agricultural purposes due to the engagement of agricultural laborer in the manufacture of Bidis, the state government enacted a law to prohibit such engagement of agricultural labour in the manufacture of Bidis. Whether the law violates constitutional provisions?
DECISION:

विकल्प

• No, because the law is a reasonable restriction in the interest of public as if laborers would not be available for agricultural purposes there can be shortage of food grains and wastage of crops.

• No, because Bidis are harmful for health of people so any law preventing people from engaging in manufacture of Bidis is in the interest of public.

• Yes, because the law imposes an unreasonable restriction as it indirectly makes the two sectors (manufacture of Bidis and agriculture) alternative options for the laborers whereas some people would like to work in both of these.

• Yes, because the object sought to be achieved by this law is to keep sufficient labour supply for agricultural purpose, which could have been easily achieved by restraining the employment of agricultural labour in Bidi manufacturing during the agricultural season only. Absolute restriction amounts to withdrawal of the right. Hence, the law is unconstitutional.

Answer 1

Yes, because the object sought to be achieved by this law is to keep sufficient labour supply for agricultural purposes, which could have been easily achieved by restraining the employment of agricultural labour in Bidi manufacturing during the agricultural season only. Absolute restriction amounts to withdrawal of the right. Hence, the law is unconstitutional.

Explanation:

The absolute restriction of agricultural labour in the  Bidis manufacture was unconstitutional. Only reasonable restriction to Article 19(1)(g) is permissible.