Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19: Why Changing State Policy Is a Constitutionally Valid Consideration
- Umang
- 2 days ago
- 18 min read
Table of Contents
Why Changing State Policy Is a Constitutionally Valid Consideration
Limits of the Doctrine: When Policy Cannot Save a Restriction
Conclusion: Reasonableness as the Constitution's Dynamic Engine
Introduction: Rights That Are Qualified by Design
One of the defining features of Part III of the Constitution of India is that most of the freedoms it guarantees are not absolute. The framers understood that individual liberty and social order exist in a permanent relationship of tension, and they addressed that tension not by making freedoms absolute but by subjecting them to a power of reasonable restriction — structured, bounded, and judicially reviewable.
Article 19(1) confers on all citizens the foundational freedoms of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and trade and profession. But the same Article immediately qualifies each of these freedoms through Clauses (2) to (6), which enumerate the grounds on which the State may impose restrictions. The critical condition in each of these clauses is that the restriction must be reasonable.
What makes a restriction reasonable? The answer, the Supreme Court has consistently held, cannot be reduced to a fixed formula. It varies with the nature of the right, the mischief sought to be remedied, the prevailing social values, and — crucially — the changing conditions and evolving State policy that the legislature must address.
The Structure of Article 19: Rights and Their Limits
The Six Freedoms
Article 19(1) guarantees six freedoms to all citizens:
(a) Freedom of speech and expression
(b) Right to assemble peaceably and without arms
(c) Right to form associations or unions or cooperative societies
(d) Right to move freely throughout the territory of India
(e) Right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India
(g) Right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
Each of these is a substantive guarantee of individual liberty, rooted in the concept of a free and democratic society.
The Restriction Clauses: An Exhaustive Code
The grounds on which restrictions may be imposed are laid down exhaustively in Clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19. This exhaustiveness is significant: the fundamental rights declared by the various sub-clauses of Clause (1) cannot be curtailed on any ground outside the relevant provisions of Clauses (2) to (6) — Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305.
The clauses of restriction are to be strictly construed. Any law which restricts a freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1) is prima facie unconstitutional unless it can be justified under the corresponding limitation clause — Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594 : AIR 1950 SC 124.
The Two-Part Test
The Supreme Court has articulated a clear two-part test for the validity of legislation challenged under Article 19:
First — whether the right claimed is a fundamental right under Article 19(1); and if so, whether the restriction imposed falls within the permissible grounds specified in the relevant clause among Clauses (2) to (6).
Second — whether the restriction is reasonable or unreasonable.
Both questions are to be decided by looking at the substance of the legislation and not by being beguiled by its mere appearance — Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712. Even a law that on its face appears to be regulatory may, on a substantive examination, constitute an excessive or unreasonable restriction.
What Constitutes a 'Restriction'
Substance, Not Form
A restriction is an imposition by law which the citizen has no option but to obey. The Court must examine the substance of the legislation — the legislature cannot disobey constitutional prohibitions by employing indirect methods — Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 554. The legislative power being subject to fundamental rights, the legislature cannot indirectly take away or abridge the fundamental rights which it cannot do directly — A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88 : AIR 1950 SC 27.
The effects of legislation are relevant for this purpose only insofar as they are the direct and inevitable consequences, or effects which could be said to have been in the contemplation of the legislature. Article 19(1) can be invoked only when a law is made which directly infringes a fundamental right.
A self-imposed restraint — where the operation of the law is attracted by reason of a contract freely entered into — is not a 'restriction' within the meaning of Article 19.
Can Restriction Include Total Prohibition?
Three propositions are well settled on this question — State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534:
"Restriction" includes "prohibition", and to determine whether total prohibition would be reasonable, the Court must balance the direct impact on the fundamental right against the greater public or social interest sought to be safeguarded.
The standard for judging reasonableness of restriction or restriction amounting to prohibition remains the same — but a total prohibition must additionally satisfy the test that a lesser alternative would be inadequate.
Whether a restriction amounts to total prohibition is a question of fact to be determined with regard to the facts and circumstances of each case and the ambit of the right.
Where a business or trade is inherently dangerous — such as the liquor trade, dealings in explosives, or activities posing ecological hazard — total prohibition may be constitutionally permissible.
Who Can Impose Restrictions — and How
Restrictions can only be imposed by or under the authority of law — not by executive power without legal backing. Without legislative authority, the Executive cannot impose any restriction upon any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19(1) — N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India, (2012) 4 SCC 653.
The restrictions may be imposed by any authority included in the definition of 'State' in Article 12, but always through law in the wider sense referred to in Article 13(3)(a), which encompasses subordinate legislation — not mere executive or departmental instructions.
The Test of Reasonableness: A Golden Thread
The test of reasonableness runs like a golden thread through the entire fabric of fundamental rights. It is not a wholly subjective test — its contours are fairly indicated by the Constitution itself.
The lofty ideals of social and economic justice, the advancement of the nation as a whole, and the philosophy of distributive justice — economic, social, and political — cannot be given short shrift in the name of undue stress on fundamental rights and individual liberty. Reasonableness and rationality, legally as well as philosophically, provide colour to the meaning of fundamental rights — Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369.
Substantive Reasonableness
The substantive aspect of reasonableness requires the Court to take into consideration:
The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed.
The underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed.
The extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied.
The disproportion of the imposition.
The prevailing conditions at the relevant time, including social values whose needs are sought to be satisfied.
The reasonableness of any legitimate expectation attached to the trade or business in question.
Crucially, no abstract or general pattern or a fixed principle can be laid down so as to be of universal application. The assessment will vary from case to case as also with regard to changing conditions, values of human life, social philosophy of the Constitution, prevailing conditions and surrounding circumstances — M.R.F. Ltd. v. Inspector Kerala Govt., (1998) 8 SCC 297. The restriction imposed must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature so as to go beyond the requirements of the felt need of society and the object sought to be achieved.
There must be a direct and proximate nexus — a reasonable connection — between the restriction imposed and the object sought to be achieved. If there is a direct nexus between the restriction and the object of the Act, a strong presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the Act will naturally arise — M.R.F. Ltd., supra.
Procedural Reasonableness
The restriction must be reasonable from the procedural standpoint as well. A penal law so vague and uncertain that it gives no notice to the accused as to what act or conduct would constitute the offence, or which imposes vicarious criminal liability, is unreasonable from the substantive point of view — State of M.P. v. Baldeo Prasad, AIR 1961 SC 293. It is not possible to formulate a single effective test — all the attendant circumstances must be taken into consideration, and one cannot dissociate the actual contents of the restrictions from the manner of imposition or the mode of putting them into practice — Khare N.B. (Dr.) v. State of Delhi, 1950 SCR 519 : AIR 1950 SC 211.
The constitutional validity of a statute is to be determined on the basis of its provisions and the ambit of its operation as reasonably construed. Mere possibility of powers conferred being abused is no ground for pronouncing a statute invalid, just as a statute otherwise unreasonable cannot be saved by its being administered reasonably — Collector of Customs, Madras v. Sampathu Chetty, AIR 1962 SC 316.
Changing Conditions as an Express Parameter
The most significant doctrinal feature of the test of reasonableness under Article 19 is that the Constitution explicitly contemplates changing conditions as a valid parameter of assessment. The standard is not fixed by what conditions prevailed when the law was enacted, nor by what the courts considered reasonable in an earlier era. It is a standard that responds to prevailing social values and evolving constitutional philosophy.
The judicial approach in interpreting constitutional provisions must necessarily be dynamic, pragmatic and elastic — alive to the felt need of the society and the complex issues facing the people which the legislature intends to solve through effective legislation — Jyoti Pershad v. Administrator for Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1961 SC 1602.
This is not a licence for the executive to impose any restriction it finds convenient and call it the product of changing policy. It is a recognition that what was a permissible restriction under yesterday's social conditions may become unreasonable tomorrow — and equally, that what would once have seemed excessive may be justified by the fresh urgency of a contemporary challenge.
Why Changing State Policy Is a Constitutionally Valid Consideration
The Directive Principles Connection
The Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV are among the most important tools through which courts assess the reasonableness of restrictions. The test of reasonableness requires that Directive Principles be kept in mind — Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 : AIR 1973 SC 1461. Restrictions which are imposed for securing the objects enjoined by the Directive Principles of State Policy may be regarded as reasonable restrictions within the meaning of Clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 — Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771.
When the State changes its policy in order to give effect to a Directive Principle — for example, introducing price controls on essential commodities to give effect to the goal of equitable distribution under Article 39(b), or imposing environmental restrictions under Article 48A — that policy change is not merely a governmental preference: it is the fulfilment of a constitutional mandate. A restriction furthering such a mandate carries a presumption of constitutional legitimacy.
Government Policy Overrides Business Interests
The Supreme Court has held, without qualification, that government policy in the public interest would override the business interests of an individual — State of Orissa v. Radhey Shyam Meher, (1995) 1 SCC 652. A restriction in public interest cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case it operates harshly on a person or some persons — Krishnan Kakkanth v. Govt. of Kerala, (1997) 9 SCC 495. A citizen's individual commercial interest gives way when the State, in the legitimate exercise of its regulatory and policy-making functions, determines that the public interest requires a restriction.
The implementation of the Directive Principles contained in Part IV of the Constitution is within the expression of restrictions in the interest of the general public for the purposes of Article 19(6) — Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 589. The right to carry on trade is subject to the directives contained in Part IV, Part III, and the Preamble of the Constitution — L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre, (1995) 5 SCC 482.
Faced with the question of testing the constitutional validity of any statutory provision or an executive act, the directive principles of State policy and fundamental duties as enshrined in Article 51A of the Constitution play a significant role in assessing whether restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights are reasonable — State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534.
The Felt Need of Society and Dynamic Judicial Approach
In appreciating whether a restriction is reasonable, the judicial approach must necessarily be dynamic, pragmatic, and elastic — Jyoti Pershad, supra. Courts must be alive to the felt need of society and the complex issues facing the people which the legislature intends to solve. The Court's approach must be to examine whether the social control envisaged in Article 19 is being effectuated by the restriction imposed — State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
The Court views the law in the context of the issues which faced the legislature and approaches the question from the point of view of furthering the social interest which the legislation seeks to promote — Municipal Corporation v. Jan Md. Usmanbhai, AIR 1986 SC 1205.
Furthermore, the reasonableness must be determined in the light of actual facts and not on a priori reasoning — Municipal Corporation, supra. A decision as to reasonableness of a restriction cannot have much value as a precedent for adjudging the validity of restrictions on another right, because reasonableness depends on the cumulative effect of the varying facts and circumstances of each case. What is reasonable in a temporary statute may not be reasonable as regards a permanent statute.
Restrictions Implementing Directives Presumed Reasonable
The connection between Directives and reasonable restrictions runs even deeper than mere relevance: ordinarily, any restriction which has the effect of promoting or effectuating a Directive Principle can be presumed to be a reasonable restriction in the public interest — Workmen v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd., (1992) 3 SCC 336. Specific Directives have been relied upon in individual cases:
Article 47 — upholding the reasonableness of laws of prohibition imposing restrictions upon the possession, sale, etc., of intoxicating liquors — State of Bombay v. Balsara, 1951 SCR 628 : AIR 1951 SC 318.
Article 43 — sustaining the reasonableness of restrictions imposed by the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Article 48 — upholding the reasonableness of prohibition on slaughter of cows and calves — Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1825.
Article 39(b) — supporting restrictions on trade and business that effectuate equitable distribution of material resources.
These are not incidental citations. They represent the Courts' recognition that Part IV and Part III are complementary elements of a single constitutional vision — and that State policy which implements the former is, for that very reason, presumptively valid when it restricts the latter.
The Principal Grounds of Restriction Under Clauses (2)–(6)
Interests of the General Public: A Wide Expression
The phrase "in the interests of the general public" — which appears in both Clauses (5) and (6) — is a wide expression of definite connotation. It comprises within its ambit the interests of public health and morals, economic stability of the country, equitable distribution of essential commodities at fair prices, maintenance of purity in public life, prevention of fraud, protection of workmen, and the implementation of the Directive Principles in Part IV — Municipal Corporation v. Jan Md. Usmanbhai, AIR 1986 SC 1205. The 'general public' refers to the rest of the citizens, not any particular group.
A legislation may be in the interests of the general public even though it affects or causes hardship to particular individuals, owing to the peculiar conditions in which they are placed — Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 430.
Public Order, Security of State, Sovereignty and Integrity
For restrictions on speech and expression under Clause (2), the grounds include the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence, and the sovereignty and integrity of India. The expression "in the interests of public order" has a wider meaning than "for the maintenance of public order" — it authorises the legislature to impose restrictions on utterances which have a tendency to cause public disorder, even if the actual disorder has not yet occurred — Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896.
'In the Interests of' vs. 'For the Maintenance of'
The distinction between these expressions is constitutionally significant. "In the interests of" is a wide connotation and wider than "for the maintenance of". It authorises the legislature to restrict an act or utterance which not only produces the mischief aimed at — such as breach of public order — but also those which have a tendency to cause that effect.
Thus, incitement of religious disaffection with a deliberate intent has a proximate tendency to cause public disorder, and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code was upheld as a reasonable restriction in the interests of public order — Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620.
However, the expression postulates a proximity of relationship: a restriction in the interest of public order must have a proximate or reasonable nexus with public order, not one that is far-fetched, hypothetical, or too remote in the chain of its relation with the public order — Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar, AIR 1960 SC 633.
The Onus of Proof: A Shifting Process
When a petitioner shows that the impugned law constitutes a restriction on a fundamental right, the onus shifts to the respondent to show that the restriction comes within the permissible limits of the relevant Clause. If the respondent does nothing, the petitioner need not prove negatively that it is not covered by any of the permissive clauses — Romesh Thappar, supra.
If the respondent shows that the law falls within one of the permissible grounds, the onus to show unreasonableness shifts back to the petitioner — though if the restriction appears prima facie unreasonable, substantive evidence to establish unreasonableness would not be required. This is thus an ongoing shifting process to be closely observed by the Court — Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712.
The preferred position is that as soon as the petitioner shows that the law constitutes a restriction upon a fundamental right by directly and proximately interfering with its exercise, the burden of proving reasonableness lies upon the State — Sukhnandan Saran Dinesh Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 902.
Necessity and Proportionality
Restrictions on fundamental rights must be based on the principle of least invasiveness — the restriction should be imposed in a manner and to the extent which is unavoidable in a given situation — N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India, (2012) 4 SCC 653. A restriction, to be permissible, must be commensurate with the danger posed — Godawat Pan Masala Products v. Union of India, (2004) 7 SCC 68. Where a total prohibition is imposed, the State must satisfy the additional test that a lesser alternative would be inadequate.
This principle of proportionality — that the restriction must be the least invasive means available to achieve the legitimate aim — runs alongside the proximate nexus test and together they form the core of substantive reasonableness under Article 19.
If Parliament decides to take over the management of textile mills, pending nationalisation, on a genuine apprehension that there might be large-scale frittering away of assets, it is not open for the Court to examine whether other remedies could have been taken — the legislature, having identified the mischief and chosen a method proportionate to its urgency, is not to be second-guessed by judicial preference for a different approach — Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., (2001) 4 SCC 139.
The Liquor Cases: Policy, Prohibition, and Public Health
The liquor trade cases represent the Supreme Court's most comprehensive treatment of how State policy, Directive Principles, and the test of reasonableness interact. The law on the right to carry on trade or business in liquor may be summarised from Khoday Sugar Works Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 1 SCC 574 and Kerala Bar Hotels Assn. v. State of Kerala, (2015) 16 SCC 421:
Potable liquor as a beverage is inherently harmful — res extra commercium — being an intoxicating and depressant drink dangerous to health. A citizen has therefore no fundamental right to carry on trade in liquor. The trade can be completely prohibited. Article 47 of the Constitution considers intoxicating drinks injurious to health and directs the State to endeavour to bring about prohibition of their consumption. This Directive, being fundamental in the governance of the country, provides constitutional sanction for the complete prohibition of the liquor trade.
The State can also impose restrictions short of prohibition — including creating a State monopoly under Article 19(6) — and can adopt any mode of selling licences so long as the method is not discriminatory. Where the State permits the trade, the citizen has the right to carry on business subject to any such limitations, and the State cannot discriminate between qualified citizens in doing so.
The liquor cases demonstrate starkly how changing State policy — from permissive licensing to partial restriction to complete prohibition — can be progressively justified by reference to the Directive in Article 47, without each policy shift requiring fresh constitutional amendment. The Directive sets the compass; the State policy charts the course; and the courts review whether the restriction is reasonable given the publicly declared public-health objective.
The DPSP as a Presumptive Justification
A restriction so imposed which has the effect of promoting or effectuating a Directive Principle can ordinarily be presumed to be a reasonable restriction in public interest — Workmen v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd., supra. The lofty ideals of social and economic justice, the advancement of the nation as a whole, and the philosophy of distributive justice — economic, social, and political — all inform the content of reasonableness.
This presumption is powerful but rebuttable. The connection between the restriction and the Directive must be real, not pretextual. In judging the reasonableness of the restriction imposed by Clause (6) of Article 19, the Court has to bear in mind the Directive Principles — Kesavananda Bharati, supra. A restriction nominally tied to a Directive but actually serving no legitimate public purpose, or disproportionate to the legitimate aim, will not survive constitutional scrutiny merely by invoking the Directive's language.
Limits of the Doctrine
The broad scope of 'public interest' and State policy does not mean that any restriction labelled as serving a public purpose is automatically reasonable. The Courts have held that:
An enactment cannot be struck down merely because the Court thinks it unjustified — but equally, mere allegation of reasonableness is not enough to save an enactment if it actually fails the test — State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709.
Determining anything contrary to law cannot be "reasonable" — Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Kamla Mills Ltd., (2003) 6 SCC 315.
A restriction which remains in force for an indefinite period at the pleasure of executive authorities, without legislative standards, is an unreasonable restriction — State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
A restriction which vests unguided, uncanalised discretion in an administrative authority to affect the rights of citizens, without intelligible standards, is unreasonable both under Article 14 and Article 19 — the two overlap where a statute creates unfettered executive discretion.
A blanket ban on a film or a documentary, without following due process, is unreasonable as a prior restraint on freedom of expression — Director General, Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan, (2006) 8 SCC 433.
When a policy decision purports to restrict trade but actually amounts to total monopolisation without adequate justification that a lesser alternative would be inadequate, the additional burden of proving the unavailability of lesser alternatives must be discharged.
Constitution's Dynamic Engine
The test of reasonableness under Article 19 is the Constitution's most sophisticated mechanism for reconciling individual liberty with collective welfare. It is deliberately non-static — no abstract or fixed principle can be laid down as of universal application; assessment varies from case to case, and with changing conditions, values of human life, the social philosophy of the Constitution, and surrounding circumstances.
The constitutionally valid role of changing State policy in this assessment flows from multiple sources: from the Directive Principles, which impose affirmative duties on the State to re-orient its policies toward social and economic justice; from the 'general public interest' standard, which encompasses the felt needs of society at any given point; and from the express instruction of the Supreme Court that the judicial approach to the reasonableness inquiry must be dynamic, pragmatic, and elastic — alive to the issues which faced the legislature.
Government policy in the public interest overrides individual business interests. Restrictions implementing Directive Principles carry a presumption of reasonableness. Changing conditions — new health hazards, fresh economic crises, emerging ecological dangers, evolving social values — all provide legitimate justification for restrictions that may once have seemed disproportionate.
What keeps this entire structure honest is the requirement of a direct and proximate nexus between the restriction and its stated objective, the principle of least invasiveness, and the insistence that the substance of the restriction — not merely its stated purpose — must pass judicial scrutiny. The citizen's freedom is not surrendered to State policy; it is qualified by it, proportionately and reviewably, in the service of the constitutional vision of a just social order.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is the basic test for a valid restriction under Article 19?
A two-part test applies. First, the restriction must fall within one of the grounds specified in Clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19, which are exhaustive. Second, the restriction must be reasonable — assessed from both substantive and procedural standpoints, by reference to the nature of the right infringed, the urgency of the evil to be remedied, the prevailing social conditions, the proportionality of the restriction, and its proximate nexus to the legislative objective — Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712.
Q: Can total prohibition constitute a 'reasonable restriction' under Article 19?
Yes, in appropriate cases. The Supreme Court has held that "restriction" includes "prohibition". However, a total prohibition must additionally satisfy the test that a lesser alternative would be inadequate — State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534. Where a trade is inherently dangerous to public health or ecology, total prohibition may be upheld.
Q: Why does the Constitution allow State policy to override fundamental rights under Article 19?
The Constitution does not allow State policy to override fundamental rights — it allows the State, through law, to impose reasonable restrictions in public interest. The reason changing State policy is relevant to reasonableness is that no fixed, eternal standard of restriction can be prescribed; what is required is that restrictions reflect the felt needs of society at the relevant time, which necessarily includes the direction of State policy as guided by the Directive Principles and social values.
Q: Are Directive Principles relevant to testing the reasonableness of restrictions under Article 19?
Yes — fundamentally so. The test of reasonableness requires the Directive Principles to be kept in mind — Kesavananda Bharati, (1973). Ordinarily, a restriction which promotes or effectuates a Directive Principle is presumed to be a reasonable restriction in the public interest — Workmen v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd., (1992) 3 SCC 336. Implementation of Directive Principles is itself treated as a restriction imposed in the interests of the general public under Clauses (5) and (6) — Indian Handicrafts Emporium v. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 589.
Q: Who bears the burden of proving that a restriction under Article 19 is reasonable?
The onus is an ongoing, shifting process — Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712. Once the petitioner shows that the law constitutes a direct restriction on a fundamental right, the burden shifts to the State to show that the restriction falls within the permissible grounds and is reasonable. If the State establishes the permissible ground, the burden may shift back to the petitioner — though if the restriction appears prima facie unreasonable, substantive evidence to establish unreasonableness would not be required of the petitioner.
Comments