Hamdard Dawakhana v Union of India
🧾 Case Title:
Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) Lal Kuan, Delhi & Anr. v. Union of India
Citation: AIR 1960 SC 554
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: B.P. Sinha (CJ), A.K. Sarkar, J.C. Shah, K. Subba Rao, and N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, JJ.
📚 Background:
This case is one of the earliest and most important constitutional law cases in India that deals with the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and its reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
It arose in the context of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, which restricted advertisements of drugs claiming to have magical or miraculous healing powers.
🧾 Facts of the Case:
Hamdard Dawakhana, a Unani pharmaceutical company, was known for selling traditional medicines and advertising them widely.
After the enactment of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954, the company was prohibited from advertising certain products claiming to cure diseases like sexual impotence, infertility, and other ailments.
The Act specifically banned advertisements related to medicines that claimed to have magical remedies or offered cures for certain diseases listed in the Act.
The company filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32, challenging the constitutionality of the Act, particularly Sections 3 and 8, arguing that the restrictions imposed on advertisements violated their freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
⚖️ Legal Issues:
Whether commercial advertisements fall under the protection of "freedom of speech and expression" under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Whether the restrictions imposed by the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954 are reasonable under Article 19(2).
Whether the Act infringes the right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g).
The distinction between commercial speech and political/social speech.
🧵 Arguments by Petitioners (Hamdard Dawakhana):
The advertisements were a mode of communication and therefore protected under Article 19(1)(a).
The restrictions imposed by the Act were not reasonable, as they imposed a blanket ban on certain advertisements.
The law interfered with their business rights under Article 19(1)(g).
⚖️ Supreme Court's Judgment:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the constitutionality of the Act. Key rulings include:
✅ 1. Advertisements are not protected under Article 19(1)(a):
The Court held that commercial advertisements that promote trade and commerce do not fall within the scope of "freedom of speech and expression".
The objective of Article 19(1)(a) is to protect political, artistic, and personal expression, not commercial promotion.
Therefore, banning such ads does not violate Article 19(1)(a).
✅ 2. The restrictions were reasonable:
Even if it were assumed that advertisements are speech, the restriction would be justified under Article 19(2) in the interest of public health and decency.
The Act's objective was to prevent exploitation of the public by misleading advertisements about supposed miracle cures.
✅ 3. No violation of Article 19(1)(g):
The right to carry on business is not absolute and can be regulated in the interest of public health.
The Court upheld the restriction as reasonable and within the state's power to regulate harmful commercial practices.
🧠 Key Legal Principles Established:
Commercial speech (advertising) does not enjoy full constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) (as per this case).
The State is empowered to impose reasonable restrictions on both speech and business, especially to protect public health and morals.
The Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954 is a valid piece of legislation, aimed at protecting vulnerable sections of society.
⚖️ Subsequent Developments:
This case did not recognize commercial speech as protected, but later cases evolved the law:
🏛️ Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL (1995) – Overruled this view partially:
Held that commercial speech is a part of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Information in advertisements is useful to the public; hence, not all advertisements can be excluded from constitutional protection.
Marked a shift in judicial thinking about commercial speech.
📌 Significance of the Hamdard Dawakhana Case:
| Point | Explanation |
|---|---|
| 📜 Constitutional Impact | First major case interpreting commercial speech and Article 19. |
| 🛑 Advertisements Restricted | Upheld ban on misleading ads relating to magic cures and drugs. |
| ⚖️ Limits of Free Speech | Clarified that not all speech is protected, especially commercial. |
| 🧪 Public Health Priority | Emphasized that public health and safety can justify restrictions. |
| 🧭 Evolving Doctrine | Later cases like Tata Press refined and liberalized this view. |
✅ Conclusion:
The Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India case is a landmark decision in Indian constitutional law, especially for distinguishing between commercial speech and other forms of expression. It upheld the state’s power to regulate harmful and misleading advertisements, particularly in the interest of public health.
Although the case took a restrictive view of commercial speech, later rulings such as Tata Press v. MTNL gradually expanded the scope of protection under Article 19(1)(a) to include commercial communications that serve public interest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments