restriction on freedom of trade, profession, occupation for the protection of environment
Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(6): when a law can limit a business to protect the environment
In one minute
Every citizen has a freedom to practise a profession or carry on any trade or business. This is Article 19(1)(g). The freedom is not absolute. Article 19(6) lets the State make laws that put reasonable restrictions on it in the interests of the general public.
Environmental laws use this power. They require consent before a factory starts, allow closure of a polluting unit, and set clean-up duties. A restriction must be made by law and must be reasonable.
Exam focus
- Frequency: Rarely asked
- Usually asked as: Long answer (10 to 15 marks)
Legal provision
- Article 19(1)(g): all citizens have the right "to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business".
- Article 19(6): nothing in sub-clause (g) stops the State from making a law that imposes, "in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions" on the right.
- Article 19(6)(i) and (ii): the State may also make laws on professional qualifications. It may also make laws on a trade or service run by the State or a State-owned corporation.
- Consent: section 25 of the Water Act and section 21 of the Air Act need the previous consent of the State Board.
- Directions: section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and section 33A of the Water Act can direct the closure, prohibition or regulation of an industry.
Meaning and definition
A reasonable restriction is a limit on a freedom that is not excessive or arbitrary compared with the harm it prevents. Protecting the environment serves the general public. A law that controls polluting trades can therefore fall inside Article 19(6).
The public has an interest in clean air and water, which Article 21 protects. Courts weigh trade against that interest.
- 1. Is the restriction made by a law? Article 19(6)No: a mere executive order has no statutory backing.
- 2. Is it in the interests of the general public? Protection of the environmentNo: it fails Article 19(6).
- 3. Is it reasonable and not excessive for the harm it prevents? ProportionalityNo: the court can set aside or reduce it.
- 4. ResultThe restriction is valid.
Detailed explanation
Step 1: the three tests
A restriction on a business for environmental reasons should satisfy three tests. It must be made by a law. It must be in the interests of the general public. It must be reasonable.
Step 2: how statutes restrict business
The Water Act and the Air Act bar a person from starting an industry that discharges effluent or emissions without the previous consent of the State Board. This is consent to establish and operate. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 lets the Central Government direct the closure, prohibition or regulation of any industry, operation or process.
Example. A dye unit wants to start near a river in Gujarat. It must first obtain the Board's consent. The Board can attach conditions, and breach of a condition can lead to action.
Step 3: restrictions ordered by courts
The Supreme Court has shut or restricted businesses to protect the public. The judgments in the case list below do not discuss Article 19(1)(g). They show restrictions of the kind Article 19(6) permits.
- In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case), applications for licences to set up new industries had to be refused unless trade effluents would be treated.
- In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., the Court closed the most harmful quarries. It accepted that quarry owners would face hardship. It called this a price that has to be paid to protect the right of the people to live in a healthy environment.
- In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2002) — CNG buses in Delhi, the Court held that public health has priority over the profit of industry.
Step 4: the limit of reasonableness
A restriction can go too far. In Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati, the Supreme Court set aside a closure of three industries as disproportionate. It required each to deposit Rs 10 crores instead. The doctrine of proportionality asks that the measure match the harm.
Example. A unit has a small, curable fault in its effluent plant. A total ban for years would be excessive. A time-bound order to repair the plant, with a deposit as security, matches the harm.
Don't confuse: regulation and prohibition
| Point | Regulation | Prohibition or closure |
|---|---|---|
| Effect | The business continues under conditions | The business stops |
| Example | Consent with effluent limits (Water Act section 25) | Direction to close under section 5 of the 1986 Act |
| Test | Reasonable and in the public interest | Must also be proportionate to the harm |
Inside the concept. A State requires every sand miner to hold a licence and mine only up to a seasonal limit. This is regulation.
Just outside it. A court orders every unit in a zone shut without looking at the harm each one causes. The order would be open to challenge as disproportionate.
Common mistakes
- Saying Article 19(1)(g) is absolute. Article 19(6) allows reasonable restrictions.
- Forgetting that a restriction must be made by a law.
- Assuming the environmental judgments decided the point under Article 19(1)(g). Several only applied the statutes and Article 21.
- Treating every closure as valid. Alembic shows a closure can be set aside as disproportionate.
Apply it
Problem
A State law bars sand mining in a river's floodplain beyond a fixed seasonal quota. A contractor says the law violates his freedom to carry on business.
Issue
Is the restriction valid under Article 19(6)?
Rule
A law may impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. Protection of the environment serves the public.
Application
The restriction is made by a law. It protects the river for everyone. It limits, but does not ban, mining.
Conclusion
The restriction is likely to be held reasonable and valid.
Leading case laws
- M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Ganga Pollution Case)
Facts. Untreated sewage from Kanpur and wastes from industries polluted the Ganga.
Principle. Applications for licences to set up new industries must be refused unless trade effluents are treated. Immediate action must be taken against existing polluting industries.
Why it matters. It makes treatment a condition of starting a business.
- Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.
Facts. Limestone quarrying in the Mussoorie hills caused landslides and dried up springs.
Principle. The most harmful quarries were closed, despite hardship to owners.
Why it matters. It puts the public's right to a healthy environment above the owners' business loss.
- Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati
Facts. The Tribunal ordered closure of three industries and revoked their clearances.
Principle. The Supreme Court set aside the closure as disproportionate and required each industry to deposit Rs 10 crores.
Why it matters. It shows proportionality as the limit on a restriction.
How to write this answer in the exam
5-mark answer
- Article 19(1)(g) and the limit in Article 19(6).
- Three tests: law, public interest, reasonable.
- Examples: consent, closure, clean-up orders.
- One case.
10-mark answer
- Text of Article 19(1)(g) and Article 19(6).
- Environment as a public interest.
- Statutory restrictions: Water Act, Air Act, 1986 Act.
- Court orders: Ganga, Rural Litigation Kendra, CNG.
- Limit: proportionality in Alembic.
- The comparison table; conclusion.
Key points to remember
- Article 19(1)(g): freedom of profession, occupation, trade, business.
- Article 19(6): reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public.
- Tests: made by law; public interest; reasonable.
- Section 5 of the 1986 Act allows closure, prohibition or regulation of an industry.
- Alembic: closure set aside as disproportionate.
Quick self-test
1. Which clause allows reasonable restrictions on trade and business?
Article 19(6).
2. Name one statute that restricts a business without the Board's consent.
The Water Act (section 25) or the Air Act (section 21).
3. Which case set aside a closure as disproportionate?
Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati.