Narendra Kumar v. Union of India

FACTS

Three petitioners, who were dealers and importers of copper and carried on their business at Jagadhri, filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of their fundamental rights conferred by Article 14, 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g). On different dates prior to April 3, 1958, they entered into contracts of purchase of copper with importers at Bombay and Calcutta. Before they could take delivery, the Government of India issued on April 2, 1958, the "Non-ferrous Metal Control Order, 1958" (the Order) in exercise of its powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Order was made applicable to imported copper.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

• This Hon'ble court construed the term “restriction” in Article 19(6) to include "prohibition" and ruled that the reasonableness of such a restriction has to be considered in the background of the facts and circumstances under which the order was made, taking into account:

  • The nature of the evil that was sought to be remedied by the law.

  • The ratio of the harm caused to such citizens by the proposed remedy to the beneficial effect reasonably expected to result to the general public.

  • Whether the restraint caused by the law was more than necessary in the interests of the general public.

• This court held that copper was an essential commodity; its indigenous production was small; consumers depended on imported copper and its prices had a tendency to go up.

• Hence, the court established a direct relation between the importer and the consumer of copper and completely eliminated the interests of the general public (meaning the Order focused on the public good over individual trade interests). The Order was promulgated in an honest effort to protect the interests of the general public.

• The Supreme Court, therefore, upheld the validity of the Order, ruling that it constituted a reasonable restriction on the petitioners' right to trade under Article 19(1)(g).

{pg 1116, 1121, Indian Constitutional Law by MP Jain 8th ed}