http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3270 of 1998

PETITIONER: Om Prakash & Others                                             

RESPONDENT: State of UP & Others                                            

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/03/2004

BENCH: D.M. Dharmadhikari

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Dharmadhikari J. On the question of competence of the Municipal Board  Rishikesh to amend the bye-law and validity of ban on sale of eggs in  public within the municipal limits of Rishikesh, I have found myself in  respectful agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of learned  Brother Shivaraj V. Patil, J.

I, however, consider it necessary to deal with seperately the  ground urged to assail the bye-law as being violative of  fundamental  right of trade guaranteed to citizens under Article 19 (1) (g) read  with Article 19 (6) of the Constitution of India.

Right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation,  trade or business being a very valuable right has been treated as  fundamental and guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the  Constitution.  This right can be restricted under Article 19 (6) only by  law and on such reasonable grounds which are found to be in the  interest of general public.  What should be considered a reasonable  restriction within the meaning of clause (6) of Article 19 came up for  consideration in a series of cases before this Court.

In Chintaman Rao vs. State of M.P. [AIR 1951 SC 118], it was  observed that there should be proper balance between the right of  trade guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and the social control  permitted under clause (6) of Article 19 :-  

’The word ’reasonable’ implies intelligent care and deliberation,  that is the choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation  which arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said  to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it strikes a  proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19(1)  (g) and the social control permitted by Clause (6) of Article 19,  it must be held to be wanting in that quality’.                                                      [emphasis added]

 In the case of State of Madras vs. V.G. Row [AIR 1952 SC  196], this Court observed that there can be no general principles or  standards to test reasonableness of a restriction on a particular  trade. Each case has to be judged on the basis of facts and  circumstances brought to the notice of the Court.  ’The test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be  applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract  standard, or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down  as applicable to all cases. 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 thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the  prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

judicial verdict’.                                                       [emphasis added]

       The observations in the aforesaid two decisions have been  quoted with approval in the State of Maharashtra vs. Himmatbhai  Narbheram Rao [AIR 1970 SC 1157] in which challenge to  Section 385 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act imposing  restrictions on dealing with carcass or skin of animals within the  municipal limits as affecting the trade of the people dealing in those  obnoxious items was negatived holding such restrictions to be in  general public interest.  

Reasonable restriction on certain trades in articles which are   hazardous to public health such as liquor, it is held, can go to the  extent of imposing complete prohibition on such trade.  See State of  Andhra Pradesh vs. Mcdowell & Co. [ 1996 (3) SCC 709] .

Complete ban on slaughter of cow and its progeny has also  been upheld to save cow as an animal species highly useful to human  community.  See Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar  [AIR 1958 SC 731] and Hashmattullah vs. State of Madhya  Pradesh & Ors. [ 1996 (4) SCC 391 ].

Learned Counsel on behalf of appellants has argued that trade  of eggs cannot be considered as objectionable or injurious to society.   In fact, egg eating is encouraged as necessary for improvement of  public health.  Doctors recognise it as a nutritive supplement to other  food.  There are eggs which contain no chicks and, therefore,  acceptable to many sections of the society including those who are  otherwise vegetarians.

The basic question, therefore, that arises is whether complete  prohibition imposed on trade of eggs within the municipal limits of  Rishikesh can be held to be reasonable and  can pass the test of  clause (6) of Article 19, as has been interpreted by this Court from  case to case in various situations

It is a matter of common knowledge  that Haridwar, Rishikesh  and adjoining town Muni Ki Reti situate on the bank of river Ganges  are pilgrim centres with huge temple complexes, shrines, ashrams,  yoga teaching institutions and other institutions engaged in religious  activities and spiritual practices.  The three towns attract pilgrims  round the year and in greater numbers during auspicious days and  annual fairs.  Pilgrims congregate in the towns to take bath in river  Ganga considered to be holy by them.  They visit temples and stay in  various religious places and institutions.  There is, thus, a continuous  inflow of pilgrims in these religious towns.  Every 6th year a big  religious fair is organised called as Purn Kumbh or Ardh Kumbh in  which crores of people from all over the country congregate in the  three towns.

Supporting the imposition of ban on trade of eggs  along with  ban on trade of meat and fish, which is already in existence, it has  been stated by the State and the local authority that it was so  imposed on constant demands of citizens, various organisations and  institutions operating within Haridwar and Rishikesh areas.  Copies of  some of such representations in writing received from individuals and  religious organisations have been placed on record of this case.  A  major section of the society in the three towns consider it desirable  that vegetarian atmosphere is maintained in the three towns  for the  inhabitants and the pilgrims.

In municipal limits of Haridwar public dealing in meat, fish and  eggs was banned by the Notification issued as far back as on 23rd

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

July, 1956 and in Muni Ki Reti by Notification dated 18.12.1976.    These restrictions imposed in Haridwar and Muni Ki Reti have not  been challenged by any section of people in the Court and have  continued as fully acceptable to all. The towns of Haridwar and  Rishikesh have acquired religious importance as they are located on  banks of river Ganges in the foot hills of Himalayas and are two main  entry points for pilgrimage to Badrinath and Kedarnath located on  the heights of Himalayas.

As a justification for extension of ban on trade of eggs with ban  on trade of meat and fish in municipal area of Rishikesh which  adjoins Haridwar and Muni Ki Reti, it has been stated on behalf of  Municipal Board and State that during the periodical Kumbh fairs, the  areas which are notified for organizing Kumbh Mela comprise parts of   municipal areas in Haridwar, Muni Ki Reti and Rishikesh.  One such  Notification earmarking the areas of Kumbh Mela held in the year  1992, issued under byclause (2) of United Province,  Mela Act of  1938 (UP Act No.16 of 1938)   has been annexed with counter  affidavit of the State.

The High Court in upholding  complete restriction on dealing  and trading of eggs in Rishikesh has relied on several decisions of  this Court.  The High Court has come to the conclusion that such  prohibition extended to the trade of eggs in municipal town of  Rishikesh is a reasonable restriction and has been imposed in the  interest of general public. Whether a particular restriction on trade to the extent of its  complete prohibition can be held to be ’reasonable’ within the  meaning of clause (6) of Article 19 depends upon the nature of the  trade involved and the public interest that is intended to be served by  such total restriction.

The concept of ’reasonableness’ defies definition. Abstract  definition like ’choice of a course which reason dictates’ as  propounded in the earliest case of this Court in  Chintaman Rao  (Supra) is elastic. In the subsequent case of V.G. Row (supra),  therefore, this Court has observed that ’no abstract standard or  general pattern’ of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to  all cases. Legal Author Friedmann in his book ’Legal Theory, 4th Ed.,  at pages 83-85’, comments that reasonableness is an expression  used to convey basically the Natural Law ideal of ’justice between  man and man’. The concept of ’reasonable man’ is also an application  of the principles of natural justice to the standard of behaviour  expected of the citizen. Th functional and conceptual implication of  the term ’reasonableness’ is that it is essentially another word used  for public policy. It means the application of the underlying principles  of social policy and morality to an individual case. Friedmann  further  observes that the ’test of reasonableness is nothing substantially  different from ’social engineering’, ’balancing of interests’, or any of  the other formulas which modern sociological theories suggest as an  answer to the problem of the judicial function’.

       The term ’reasonable restriction’ as used in Article 19(6) is  highly flexible and relative term which draws its colour from the  context. One of the sources to understand it is natural law and in the  sense of ideal, just, fair, moral or conscionable to the facts and  circumstances brought before the Court.

The law regulating local administration of an urban or rural area  affects the social and economic life of the community. As pointed out  by another Legal Thinker Stone, in his book Social dimensions of  Law & Justice ’reasonable restriction’, if properly used, helps in  ’adjustments of conflicting interests’ such as in the present case  where large number of people residing and visiting Rishikesh, believe  in strict vegetarianism as a part of their religion and way of life. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

appellants who are running hotels and restaurants and others like  them constitute comparatively a very small section of the society  engaged in carrying on trade of non-vegetarian food items in the  town.  

       The reasonableness of complete restriction imposed on trade of  non-vegetarian food items has, therefore, to be viewed from the  cultural and religious background of the three municipal towns.  

       It is a matter of common knowledge that members of several  communities in India are strictly vegetarians  and shun meat, fish  and eggs.  Such people in great number regularly and periodically  visit Haridwar, Rishikesh and Muni Ki Reti on pilgrimage.

In the three towns people mostly assemble for spiritual  attainment and religious practices. All citizens are enjoined by  Fundmental Duties prescribed in Article 51-A  to respect faith of each  other and thereby ’promote harmony and spirit of common  brotherhood’ in a pluralistic society as India is.

Article 51-A\027 "It shall be the duty of every citizen of India \027 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)     to promote harmony and the spirit of common  brotherhood amongst all people of India transcending  religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to  renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;   (f)     to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite  culture."

The Fundamental Duties enjoined on citizens under Article 51-A  should also guide the legislative and executive actions of elected or  non-elected institutions and organisations of the citizens including the  municipal bodies.          The resolution by Municipal Board Rishikesh  to amend its bye- laws for banning public dealing and trade of non-vegetarian food  items in municipal town of Rishikesh along with adjoining towns of  Haridwar and Muni Ki Reti has been taken in deference to the  religious and cultural demands of large number of residents and  pilgrims who visit regularly and periodically on auspicious and festive  days to the three towns.  It is stated on behalf of the Municipal Board  that major source of revenue and employment in the three towns is  from the continuous inflow of tourists and floating population of  pilgrims.  Maintenance of clean and congenial atmosphere in all  religious places which are spread over all the three towns is in  common interest of the residents, pilgrims and visitors.  Continuous  floating population of pilgrims benefit the inhabitants of the towns by  providing them various sources of earning livelihood and  employment.  Tourists and pilgrims are the major sources of revenue  for the Local Municipal Bodies and the inhabitants of the three towns.   Geographical situation and peculiar culture of the three towns justify  complete restriction on trade and public dealing in non-vegetarian  food items including eggs within the municipal limits of the towns.   The High Court rightly upheld it to be a reasonable restriction.  Trade  in all kinds of food items vegetarian or non-vegetarian in adjoining  towns and villages outside the municipal limits of three towns  remains unrestricted and there is no substantial harm caused to  those engaged in such trade.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

       For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned bye-law notified by  Municipal Board Rishikesh cannot be held to be violative of Article 19  (1) (g) of the Constitution.  With this addition, I respectfully agree  with the opinion of learned brother Shivaraj V. Patil, J. and with his  conclusion that this appeal be dismissed.