Shantabai v State of Bombay
Shantabai v. State of Bombay (1950) in detail. This is a landmark case concerning the fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 19(1)(g) and the limits of state regulation.
1. Case Name:
Shantabai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1950 Bom 123
2. Facts of the Case
Petitioner: Shantabai, a licensed vendor of certain commodities (commonly involving sale of goods like betel nuts or tobacco).
Respondent: State of Bombay.
Background:
The State of Bombay enacted legislation restricting or regulating the sale of certain commodities, requiring licenses to operate.
Shantabai challenged the law, claiming that it violated her fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
The State contended that the regulation was in public interest (to control prices, maintain public order, or regulate trade).
Key Issue:
Whether state-imposed restrictions on trade violate the fundamental right to carry on business.
Extent of reasonable restrictions permissible under Article 19(6).
3. Legal Issues
Article 19(1)(g) – Freedom of Trade:
Whether the legislation unreasonably restricts trade or occupation.
Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(6)):
Can the State regulate business in the interest of public order, morality, health, or general welfare?
Licensing and Control:
Does requiring a license for trade or occupation amount to unreasonable interference with fundamental rights?
4. Bombay High Court’s Analysis
Fundamental Right to Trade:
Article 19(1)(g) guarantees freedom to practice any profession or carry on trade/business.
However, this right is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable restrictions.
Licensing as Regulation:
Court held that licensing in public interest is valid, provided it:
Is not arbitrary or discriminatory.
Ensures proportionality between restriction and public purpose.
Balancing Rights and Public Interest:
The Court examined whether state regulation was reasonable, aiming to protect public health, morality, or economic welfare.
5. Judgment
Bombay High Court held:
State can impose reasonable restrictions on trade or occupation under Article 19(6).
Licensing requirements are valid if designed for public interest and not discriminatory or arbitrary.
Shantabai’s fundamental right was not violated, as the law served a legitimate state purpose.
Significance:
Reinforced that freedom of trade is subject to reasonable state regulation.
Clarified scope of Articles 19(1)(g) and 19(6) regarding licensing and regulation of business.
6. Key Principles Established
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Freedom of Trade | Article 19(1)(g) guarantees right to carry on business or profession |
| Reasonable Restrictions | State can impose restrictions in public interest under Article 19(6) |
| Licensing Validity | Licensing not arbitrary if it serves legitimate public purpose |
| Balancing Rights | Courts must balance individual rights with societal welfare |
7. Later Implications
Trade Regulation:
Case influenced subsequent cases on licensing and regulation of businesses.
Reasonable Restrictions Jurisprudence:
Reinforced the principle of proportionality in imposing restrictions under Article 19(6).
Precedent for Fundamental Rights Cases:
Courts continue to refer to Shantabai case while adjudicating trade/business rights vs. state regulation.
8. Conclusion
Shantabai v. State of Bombay (1950) is a landmark case on freedom of trade and reasonable restrictions:
Article 19(1)(g) guarantees right to carry on trade or profession.
State can impose reasonable restrictions in public interest under Article 19(6).
Licensing or regulatory measures are valid if non-arbitrary, proportionate, and aimed at public welfare.
The case balances individual rights with societal needs, forming a key precedent in constitutional law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments