Ram Jawaya Kapur and State of Punjab

Case analysis
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1955)
Citation: AIR 1955 SC 549
INTRODUCTION
Ram Jawaya Kapur and Ors. is a landmark case dealing with the executive's powers and
functions. The court found that as time passes, the executive's powers and functions evolve
and that the executive's functions do not necessarily require legislative approval. The Court
determined that there are moments when the activities of these organs overlap. The court
accepted a non-rigid concept of separation of powers because it believed that a strict
interpretation of the doctrine would be unworkable.
FACTS
It was alleged by six persons by the means of a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution who claim to carry on the business of preparing, printing, publishing, and selling
textbooks for different classes in the schools of Punjab under the name “Uttar Chand Kapur
& Sons”. It was purported that the Education department of the Government of Punjab in
performance of their ostensible policy of nationalization of textbooks issued a series of
notifications since the 1950s with regards to the printing, publication, and sale of the same.
It was contested in the petition that the sale of these books placed unwarrantable restrictions
ousting other fellow traders from the business. It was maintained by petitioners that their
right to carry on trade i.e Article 19(1)(g) was infringed without any proper legislation sans
executive order & therefore the petitioners prayed for the writ of mandamus directing the
Government of Punjab to withdraw the notifications in violation of their rights.
ISSUES INVOLVED
1. What is the scope and extent of executive powers?

2. Whether the Government of a State has the power under the Constitution of India to
carry on a trade or business without any legislative sanction?
3. Whether the Government of Punjab in creating a monopoly in the business of printing
and publishing the school textbooks violated the Fundamental Rights of the
petitioners enshrined under Article 19(1)(g)?
CONTENTIONS
 The counsel for the petitioner contended that:
This demonstration of government was not just violative of their essential right of
conveying any sort of exchange or business referenced in Article 19 (1)(g), but on the
other hand was ultra-vires to the sacred power vested in the public authority, as the
public authority is an executory body of the State couldn’t do as such with no particular
regulation enabling them to go into that action or exchange.
 The counsel for Respondent contended that:
The said activity was covered under the ambit of their inferred leader power as
attributable to the evolving period, the chief currently has an expanded ambit of abilities
and capacities instead of the customary capacity of keeping up with state security and
respectability.
The counsel further contended that they acted under the procedure required and hence not
only making it completely intra-vires their powers but also in line with the fundamental
rights of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
The court observed and held as follows.
With respect to the first question on whether there was a violation of fundamental rights of
the petitioners through the act by the state government, the court refused to accept the
petitioners and argued that there was a violation of fundamental rights under article 19(1) (g).
It is observed that, when it comes to school books, it is the school who should suggest the
kind of books, and it is not the right of publishers to insist the students or school for
acceptance of their books as textbooks. It noted that when a trader is lucky enough in the
market, his goods would be secured, but if he loses any such trade, then he or she shall not
state that his or her fundamental right to have the customers has been violated. Thus, it stated
and held that the scopes of such chances are incidental to each business, and there is no
fundamental right in the present case.
Lastly, with respect to the second issue, the court firstly the importance of articles 73 and 162
of the Indian Constitution as it deals with executive powers and the extent to which
parliament and state powers are executed. In that way, it was observed by the court that a
modern state should be expected to engage in all the activities that are required for the
welfare of the people of the country. It is also observed that in order to carry on particular
trade or business, it is indeed required that special legislation is enacted for additional
requirements of powers other than what has been provided to an executive as per law. In that
situation, special legislation would be required to encroach upon the privacy rights, for that
matter. As the question of whether there was a violation of the fundamental rights of
petitioners was dismissed, it is also immaterial to state whether the government could, in a
way, have powers to establish a monopoly without law under article 19(6) of the constitution
shall remain immaterial as well.
Thus, the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India.
Ratio Decidendi:
While managing the issues of the case, the Court needed to answer the idea of leader power
and the degree of the elements of the chief. To decide the idea of chief influence, the Court
alluded to the two Australian instances of The Commonwealth and the Central Wool
Committee Vs The Colonial Combing, Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., and Attorney-
General for Victoria Vs The Commonwealth. According to the Court, the Australian
Constitution explicitly characterizes chief influence to incorporate just upkeep of the
Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth.
Conclusion:
This case is to be sure a significant one in India with regards to understanding the
constitutions administrative construction and division of power among the 3 wings of the
government, i.e., the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. The case is likewise significant for
understanding the extension to which an executive body can meddle in a private right with
next to no particular official support.
The doctrine of separation of power, in contemporary occasions, isn’t limited to the severe
division of power among different organs of the State yet remembers the exercise of such
power for the standard of “Governing rules” implying the way that none of the organs of
Government ought to usurp the fundamental elements of different organs. The case
encourages the comprehension of the division of force by securing those demonstrations of
an organ that may seem to infringe upon the powers and elements of different organs yet is
simply accidental to its fundamental powers or capacities. Henceforth, despite the fact that it
takes into account a circumstance where an organ may infringe upon the powers of the other,
it maintains the freedom of every organ too.
This comprehension of the connection between the three organs of the State becomes
pertinent in contemporary occasions all through the world attributable to the increment in the
intricacy of elements of every one of the organs.

Ram Jawaya Kapur and State of Punjab

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ram Jawaya Kapur and State of Punjab

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case analysis

Citation: AIR 1955 SC 549

1. What is the scope and extent of executive powers?

 The counsel for the petitioner contended that:

 The counsel for Respondent contended that:

The court observed and held as follows.

Thus, the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India.

You might also like