State of Maharashtra v Mayer Hans George (1965)
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1965)
Case Overview:
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George is a landmark Supreme Court of India case dealing with the fundamental right to trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and the scope of state regulation under Article 19(6). The case primarily concerns the limits on the state’s power to impose restrictions on carrying on a trade or business, and the principles governing what constitutes reasonable restrictions under the Constitution.
Facts of the Case:
Mayer Hans George was engaged in the business of running a restaurant in Maharashtra.
The State government enacted regulations that imposed certain conditions and licensing requirements for running restaurants.
Mayer Hans George challenged these regulations, claiming that they violated his fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g).
The main issue was whether the state's regulatory measures were reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public, as permitted under Article 19(6), or whether they unlawfully infringed upon the right to trade.
Legal Issues:
Whether the right to carry on any trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) is absolute or subject to reasonable restrictions?
What is the scope and ambit of “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(6)?
Whether the state’s regulation on licensing of restaurants is a reasonable restriction in public interest?
How should courts balance individual rights with state’s power to regulate for public welfare?
Court’s Analysis:
The Supreme Court affirmed that the right to carry on any trade or business is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g), but it is not absolute.
Article 19(6) permits the state to impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public.
The Court laid down that the test for reasonableness involves examining:
Whether the restriction has a legitimate public purpose.
Whether the restriction is proportionate and not excessive.
Whether the restriction is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or oppressive.
The Court observed that licensing requirements and regulations aimed at ensuring health, safety, and order are legitimate state interests.
The Court held that such regulations are valid restrictions provided they do not completely or unfairly deny the right to carry on business.
The Court emphasized the importance of balancing individual freedoms with collective welfare.
It also noted that judicial scrutiny must ensure that restrictions genuinely serve public interest and do not merely serve administrative convenience.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the state's power to regulate the restaurant business through licensing and other conditions.
The Court held that the regulations imposed by Maharashtra were reasonable and constitutionally valid restrictions under Article 19(6).
Mayer Hans George’s claim that these restrictions violated his fundamental right was rejected.
The Court reaffirmed that the state has a legitimate interest in regulating trades and businesses that affect public health, safety, and morals.
Important Legal Principles from the Case:
Fundamental Right to Trade or Business
Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the right to carry on any trade or business but subject to reasonable restrictions.
Reasonable Restrictions under Article 19(6)
Restrictions must serve a legitimate public interest, be proportionate, and not arbitrary or oppressive.
Balancing Individual Rights and Public Interest
Courts must balance the right to trade with the state's duty to regulate in the interest of public health, safety, and morals.
Test of Reasonableness
Includes legitimacy of purpose, proportionality, and fairness in restrictions.
Licensing as a Regulatory Tool
Licensing requirements are valid to ensure standards and prevent harm to the public.
Related Case Law:
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531
Emphasized that restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary to regulate trade.
R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628
Discussed reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) and the need for fair regulations.
M/s. A.C. Jain Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1968 SC 1039
Upheld restrictions on business to protect public interest.
Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361
Affirmed state’s power to regulate economic activities under Article 19(6).
State of Kerala v. K.C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1161
Examined reasonableness of restrictions on business licenses.
Significance of the Judgment:
This case is a landmark in constitutional law related to economic freedoms and state regulation.
It clarifies the scope and limits of the fundamental right to trade and business.
The judgment supports state regulation for public welfare without unduly infringing individual rights.
It has guided subsequent cases on licensing, trade restrictions, and economic regulation.
The case contributes to the jurisprudence on constitutional balancing of rights and regulatory powers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments