Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. A recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Saghir Ahmed v. the State of U.P. has raised the question whether an Act providing for a State monopoly in a particular trade or business conflicts with the freedom of trade and commerce guaranteed by article 301, but left the question undecided. Clause (6) of article 19 was amended by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act in order to take such State monopolies out of the purview of sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of that article, but no corresponding provision was made in Part XIII of the Constitution with reference to the opening words of article 301. It apears from the judgment of the Supreme Court that notwithstanding the clear authority of Parliament or of a State Legislature to introduce State monopoly in a particular sphere of trade or commerce, the law might have to be justified before the courts as being "in the public interest" under article 301 or as amounting to a "reasonable restriction" under article 304(b). It is considered that any such question ought to be left to the final decision of the Legislatue. Clause 4 of the Bill accordingly proposes an amendment of article 305 to make this clear.