http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 22  

PETITIONER: SURESH KUMAR & ORS.DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. & ANR. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/04/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH               TRANSFER CASE [C] NO.177 OF 1988 T.C. [C] Nos. 178-189, CMP No. 10091/89,  14930/89,  IA Nos. 5 &  6/90 in  TC No.  S.1-7/89, CPM  No. 25857/88,   CPM No. 17552/89, TC  Nos. 25-26/89,  CPM Nos.  5913-14/89, 8736/89, TC  No. 27/89,  WP No. 1235/89, 1277/90,  1278/90, IA Nos. 1 & 5/89,  in WP  No. 922/90,  1164/90, IA  No. 6/92,   WP No. 921/92, IA Nos. 5-6/93 in T.P. No. 286/94, 294/94  W.P. Nos. 778/95 and 826/95.                       J U D G M E N T K. RAMASWAMY, J.      In  this   bunch   of   cases   the   petitioners   are manufacturers of  cement, sugar  and other  commodities  and Plastic bags  (for short, ’HDPE’). The HDPE industries are a small-scale sector  that secured  loans from the banks. They allege that  due to operation of the Jute packaging Material (compulsory Use  in  Packing  Commodities)  Act,  1987  (for short, the  ’Act’) their  industries are running into losses and many  of them are compelled to close their business. The capital obtained  from the nationalised bends has become bad debt. Repeal  of the Act of gradually phasing out compulsory packing of  the commodities  with gunny  bags would  relieve hardships to  them. The would relieve hardships to them. The constitutionality of the Act and the Jute Packaging Material (compulsory Use  in Packing  commodities) Rules and standing order No.  539(E) dated  May 29,  1987 are impugned as ultra vires and  mandatory direction to the respondents to forbear enforcement thereof  in packing their finished products with jute bags etc., is sought for.      We have  had the advantage of fearing galaxy of learned senior counsel  with their  forensic legal  skills to assail the constitutionality  of Section  3 to 5 of the Act and the orders issued  by the  central Government  on the  anvil  of Articles 14,   19(1)  (9) and  301 of  the constitution  and their repudiation  with equal vehemence by counsel appearing for respondent. The petitioners’ fundamental premise is that their right  to carry  on trade  and business  guaranteed by Article 19(1)  (9) and  free  flow  of  trade  and  commerce throughout the territory of India under Article 301 has been impeded by  operation of  the Act,  the Rules and the orders

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 22  

issued by  the central  Government the restriction by way of compulsory packing  of their  finished products  with  gunny bags is  an unreasonable  restriction; further, it is not in the interests of general consumer public. The word ’general’ qualifies the  whole public; in other words, the restriction must be  in the  interest  of  the  entire  general  public, namely, the  consumers of  diverse goods. It must not merely be small   section  of the  public, namely,  the producer of jute. The  restriction also  must be or the advancement of , or to  benefit of the society as a whole.  Packing with jute bags made  compulsion irrespective  of  costs,  suitability, availability, consumers,  is arbitrary.  Executive priority, or preference  to   Jute sector at the cost, of and in total disregard of  the interests  of other  sectors like  cement, sugar or  alternative industry  or alternative  industry  or general public  would be  unreasonable, arbitrary  and total prohibition. Therefore,  the Act is illegal and void. No law should impose restriction for the benefit of a small section of the  public at  the detriment of an over-whelmingly large majority of  the people.  The Act  intends to benefit only a small  section  of  the  society  as  is  disclosed  bu  the statement  of   objects  and   Reasons,  namely,  vague  and indeterminate 4  million rural agricultural families and 2.5 lacs industrial  workers in  the jute industry in comparison with general  consumers’ community  for  whose  benefit  the Essential  commodities  Act,  1955  and  the  orders  issued thereunder was made regulating equitable distribution of the essential commodities at reasonable price.      The  compulsion   to  pack   cement,  sugar  and  other essential commodities,  with jute  bags, not only, as stated earlier, hampers  free flow  of trade  and commerce but also escalates the  cost of  the essential commodities. Jute bags are unsuitable  to particular  commodity. Emphasis  in  this behalf is  laid on  cement. Packing  cement with  jute  bags causes loss  in weight  during the  course  of  handling  in transit, recurring  wastage of    raw material like minerals and electricity,  an d loss to  the consumers was repeatedly reiterated bu  the counsel.  The wastage worked out, for the year 1987-88,  is to  the tune  of approximately  3  million tonnes of  lime stone, a non-renewable natural resource, 240 million units  of electrical  energy land 0.5 million tonnes of coal  which is  another non-renewable natural resource of the country.  The statistical  data is only illustrative. On the other  hand, packing  cement with  HPDE prevents,  apart from  cost  factors,  loss  of  the  essential  commodities, pollution and  health hazards to the  workmen. The Act casts no corresponding  obligation on jute manufacturers to supply gunny bags  as per  growing demand nor are they obligated to pass on  the benefits to the growers of raw jute. The report of the  High power  committee of  1992 would  show that  the growers are  victims of  exploitation at  the hands  of  the manufacturers to supply gunny bags as per growing demand nor are they obligated to pass on the benefits to the growers of raw jute.  The report  of the  High power  committee of 1992 would show  that the  growers are victims of exploitation at the hands  of the  manufactures. They  are not receiving any benefit from the Act.      The Act  does not provide any guidelines to protect the interests of  the growers.  On the  other  hand,  compulsory packing of  the commodities  with jute  bags is  intended to benefit only  jute will  owners who have already taken large sums of  money by way of subsidy from the central Government and modernised  their mills. Yet jute bags are not available to the required demands, which would establish that they had diversified the jute products. No guidelines are provided to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 22  

strike a  balance between  the interests  of the Jute Sector and  of   the  general  consumers  and  producers  of  other commodities.      The fact that the Government of India had issued orders permitting the  petitioners to  purchase  second-hand  gunny bags for  packing the  essential commodities is an admission that the  required quantity of qualitative jute bags are not being produced. The study reports establish gradual decrease in  cultivation   area  of   jute.  The  Jute  industry  has diversified the  manufacture of jute products in India which are exported abroad. The jute industry is importing raw jute from Bangladesh.  The  Act  does  not  expressly  intend  to operate  as   permanent  measure,   and  being  a  temporary enactment to tide over the business crisis in jute industry, the Act  is  required  to  gradually  phase  out  compulsion packing of  the commodities  with jute bags proportionately. The  committee  appointed  by  the  central  Government  had recommended  to   the  central   Government  to   phase  out compulsory packing  of the  essential commodities  with jute bags by  the end of Eighth Five Years Plan, namely, 1995-96. Instead of  repealing the  Act, fresh  orders,  the  central Government have  imposed hundred  per cent use of gunny bags in sugar  industry etc.  No heed  was paid  by  the  central Government  to   several   representations   made   by   the manufacturers, individually  and collectively, through their associations. The  High power committee’s report in para 6.3 has been  repeatedly referred  to and  relied on by Sri G.L. Sanghi. It reads thus:      "  The   Jute  industry  cannot  be      artificially  propped  up  by  this      piece   of   legislation   for   an      indefinite period, in a liberalised      economy  when  free  market  forces      have come  to operate. In any case,      this legislative  measure was  only      intended to  provide support to the      industry as  an interim measure for      a brief  period  during  which  the      industry    was     expected     to      restructure   and   readjusts   its      capacity linked to production value      added diversified  products for the      domestic and  international market.      The committee  is award of the fact      that the constitutional validity of      the Jute  packaging Act  is pending      before  the   supreme  Court  of  a      decision.   Hence,    without   any      prejudice to  the out  come of  the      court  proceedings,  the  committee      recommend that  the  provisions  in      there  existing  orders  should  be      diluted gradually  in two  or three      stages, and by 1994-95 it should be      rescinded altogether."      In addition,  they relied on paragraphs 6.1; 2.9; 2.10; 9.1 and 9.6.      The  standing   Advisory  committee  constituted  under section 4  of the  Act is not a representative committee nor the  manufacturers   find  their   representatives  in   the committee. The  HDPE is much cheaper than the gunny bag. The incidence of  cost of  the gunny  bag being component of the sale price of the essential commodity, needless burden would be passed  on to  the consumers.  In this  regard, the sugar industry pointed  out that  there is  increase in  the sugar

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 22  

factories and  production of sugar industry pointed out that there is  increase in  the sugar factories and production of sugar over  the years  from 216 to 435 from 37.40 lac tonnes to 146.35  lac tonnes respectively. On the other hand, there is gradual  decline  in  jute  cultivated  area  from  11.03 hectors to  9.10 hector.  Consequently, import  of jute from Bangladesh has  been increased from 3.10 to 54 tonnes. It is ,  contended  that  it  is  no  longer  feasible  to  obtain sufficient quantity of ’A’ class bags fit for packing sugar. The Act  being a  penal Act,  the Rules  made and the orders issued  thereunder   are,  therefore,   arbitrary  offending Article 14.      Interplay of  the operational  efficacy of the Act, the Rules and  orders, on  fundamental rights of the petitioners to  carry  on  trade  or  business  guaranteed  by  Articles 19(1),14  and  301  of  the  constitution  would  be  better appreciated only if we have a grasp of their backdrop. India lives in  villages. agricultural economy is the bed-rock for rural  India.  Property  assures  them  social  dignity  and economic  equality.  Agriculture  is  the  main  source  for economic sustenance and equality of status to the tillers of the soil  who too  have fundamental  rights to  equality  of status  and   of  opportunity   and  right   to  livelihood. Agricultural operations are their prime source of livelihood and sustained of the business and of urban population.      Professor  Harold  Laski,  an  inconoclastic  humanist, expressing  his   belief  in  Indian  Independence  and  its socialist destiny  stated in  his  "Congress  socialist"  of April 11, 1936, thus:      "Attainment   of    natural   self-      government to mean no more than the      exchange of  the control by British      capitalism  for   that  by   Indian      capitalism.  Those   who  know  the      normal life  of  the  poor  ...will      realise   enough    that    without      economic security,  liberty is  not      worth living."      The Avadi  Resolution of  congress envisaged  to redeem the plight  of the tiller of soil granting permanent tenures and conferment  title to  the lands  held under  feudalistic social  order.  Karachi  resolution  of  1931  assured  that "Political freedom  must include  real economic  freedom  of starving   millions".    The   founding   fathers   of   the constitution,  therefore,   in  the   objective  Resolution, speaking on behalf of, "we, the people of India", pledged on their   behalf  to  accord  justice,  social,  economic  and political to  all  the  citizens,  equality  of  status  and opportunity and dignity of person with stated liberties.      In Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(1994) 3 SCC 569], a constitution  Bench of  this court  to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J.,  was a  member was to consider the inter-play of life,  liberty and  equality. The  evolution to the state from police  state to  a welfare  state accepted  democratic society to  safe-guard the life, liberty and equality of the citizens. The  exercise of  right to  liberty is  subject to social control,  lest it  would become anti-social or  would undermine the  security  of  the  state.  Indian  democracy, product of  rule of  law,  aims  not  only  to  protect  the fundamental rights  of its citizens but also to establish an egalitarian social  order. Individual has to live within the social  confines  suppressing  his  unsocial  and  unbridled growth  for   reconciling  individual  liberty  with  social control. Liberty  must be controlled in the interests of the society. The  societal interest must never br overbearing to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 22  

justify total  deprivation of  individual  liberty.  Liberty cannot stand  alone. It  must be  paired  with  a  companion virtue; liberty  and  morality;  liberty  law;  liberty  and justice; liberty and common good; liberty and responsibility which are  concomitants  for  orderly  progress  and  social stability. Man  being a  rational individual  has to live in harmony with the equal rights of others more differently for the attainment  of antithetic  desires. Liberty  would  not, therefore, be always an absolute licence but must arm itself within the  confines of law. In that case, the question was: whether TADA  Act is constitutionally valid? while declaring part of  the Act as invalid, the above statement of law came to be  laid therein.  In Kesawananda  Bharati vs.  Union  of India [(1973)  Supp. SCR  1], the  Full court  had held that preamble  of  the  constitution  is  integral  part  of  the constitution. In  S.R. Bommai  vs. Union  of India [(1994) 3 SCC 1], the preamble has been held to be the basic structure of the constitution.      The preamble  of the constitution is the epitome of the basic  structure  guilt  in  the  constitution  guaranteeing justice-social, economic  and political-  equality of status and of opportunity with dignity of person and fraternity. To establish and  egalitarian social  order, the  trinity,  the preamble, the  fundamental Rights  in Part III and Directive principles of  state policy  (for  short,  ‘Directives’)  in chapter IV  of the constitution delineated the socioeconomic justice. The word ’justice’ envision in the preamble is used in broad  spectrum to  harmonise individual  rights with the general welfare  of the  society. The  constitution  is  the supreme law.  The purpose  of law  is realisation of justice whose content  and scope  vary depending upon the prevailing social environment.  Every social and economic change causes change in  the law.  In a democracy governed by rule of law, it is  not possible  to change  the legal  basis  of  socio- economic  life  of  the  community  without  bringing  about corresponding change  in the  law, endeavor needs to be made to harmonise  the individual  interest  with  the  paramount interest of the community keeping pace with the realities of ever changing  social and  economic life  of  the  community envisaged in  the  constitution.  Justice  in  the  preamble implies  equality  consistent  with  the  competing  demands between  distributive   justice  with  those  of  cumulative justice. Justice  aims to  promote the general well-being of the  community  as  well  as  individual’s  excellence.  The principal end  of society is to protect the enjoyment of the individuals  subject   to  social   order,  well-being   and morality. Establishment  of priorities  of  liberties  is  a political judgment.      Law is  the manifestation  of  principles  of  justice, equity and  good conscience.  Rule of law should establish a uniform pattern  for harmonious existence in a society where every individual  would exercise  his  rights  to  his  best advantage  to  achieve  excellence,  subject  to  protective discrimination. The  best advantage  of one  person could be the worst  disadvantage to another. Law steps in to iron out such  creases   and  ensures   equality  of   protection  to individual as  well as  group liberties.  Man’s status  is a creature of  substantive as well as procedural law  to which legal  incidents   would  attach.   justice,  equality   and fraternity are trinity for social and economic equality. Law is the  foundation on  which the  potential of  the  society stands. Law  is an  instrument for  social  change  as  also defender for  social change. In Madhu Kishwar & Ors. etc. v. state of  Bihar &  Ors. [Writ  petition (C) No. 5723 of 1982 dated April  17,1996], the  question was: whether the tribal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 22  

women are entitled to equality in matters of succession with male members?  One of  us (K.  Ramaswamy, J.)  has held that they are entitled to equality in matters of succession.      Social justice  is the  comprehensive  form  to  remove social imbalances  by   law harmonising  the rival claims or the interests  of different  groups and/or  sections in  the social structure  or individuals  by means of which alone it would be  possible to build up a welfare state. The ideal of economic justice  is to  make equality  of status meaningful and the life worth living at its best removing inequality of opportunity and of status- social, economic and political.      The content  ambit and  interplay of justice and social justice was  elucidated in  Consumer  Education  &  Research Centre &  Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1995) 3 SCC 42] by a Bench  of three  Judges of  this Court  in paragraph 18 at page 67.  The court  observed that  the constitution  is the supreme law  envisaging social justice as its arch to ensure life to  everyone to  be meaningful  and livable  with human dignity. Jurisprudence  is the  eye of law giving an insight into the  environment of  which it  is  the  expression.  it relates the  law to  the spirit  of the  time and  makes  it richer. Law  is the ultimate aim of every civilised society, as a  key system  in a  given era,  to meet  the  needs  and demands  of   its   time.   Justice,   according   to   law, comprehensive social  urge and commitment. Justice, liberty, equality and fraternity are supreme constitutional values to establish the  egalitarian social,  economic  and  political democracy. Social  justice, equality  and dignity  of person are  cornerstones   of  social   democracy.  social  justice consists of  diverse principles  essential for  the  orderly growth and  development of  personality  of  every  citizen. Justice is  the generic  sense and  social  justice  is  its facet, a  dynamic device  to mitigate  the sufferings of the disadvantaged and  to eliminate  handicaps so  as to elevate them to  the level  of equality to live life with dignity of person, social  justice is  not a simple or single idea of a society but is an essential part of complex social change to relieve the  poor etc.  from handicaps, penury, to ward them off from  distress and  to  make  their  lives  livable  for greater good  of  the  society  at  large.  social  justice, therefore, gives  substantial degree of social, economic and political equality,  which is  the constitutional  right  of every  of    every  citizen.  In  para  19,  it  is  further elaborated that  social justice is one of the disciplines of justice which  relates to the society. What is due cannot be ascertained  by   absolute  standard  which  keeps  changing depending  upon  the  time,  place  and  circumstances.  The constitutional concern  of social  justice,  as  an  elastic continuous process,  is to  transform and  accord justice to all sections  of the  society by  providing  facilities  and opportunities to  remove  handicaps  and  disabilities  with which the  poor etc.  are languishing.  It  aims  to  secure dignity of  their person.  It is  the duty  of the  state to accord justice  to all  members of the society in all facets of human  activity. The  concept of  social  justice  embeds equality to  flavour and enlivens practical content of life. social justice  and equality are complementary to each other so that  both should  maintain their  vitality. Rule of law, therefore, is a potent instrument of social justice to bring about  equality  in  result.  Article  1  of  the  universal Declaration of  Human Rights envisions that all human beings are born  free and  equal in  dignity and  rights  and  each should act  towards one  another in a spirit of brotherhood. In that  case the  question was:  whether rights  to  social security is a fundamental right to workman? to make the life

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 22  

of the  workman worth  living with  health, it was held that right to health is a fundamental right and it is the duty of the  state   and  the   employer  to  provide  facility  and opportunities for ensuring sustained good health and leisure to the workman as facet of right to life under article 21.      In Mrs.  Valsamma Paul  v. Cochin University & Ors. [JT 1996(1) SC  57], a  Bench of  this court has held that human rights are  derived from  the dignity  and worth inherent in the human person. Human rights and fundamental freedoms have been  reiterated  in  the  universal  declaration  of  human rights. Democracy, development and respect for human rights. Democracy, development  and respect for human rights and the fundamental freedoms  are inter-dependent  and  have  mutual reinforcement. Article  29(2) of  the Declaration  of  Human Rights provides  that "in  the exercise  of this  rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are  determined by law solely for the rights and freedoms of others  and of leading the just requirements of morality, public order  and general  welfare in a democratic society." The  concept   of  equality  and  equal  protection  of  law guaranteed by  Article 14 of the constitution in its propers spectrum  encompasses  social  and  economic  justice  in  a political democracy as its species to eliminate inequalities in status  and to provide facilities and opportunities among the individual and groups of people to secure adequate means of livelihood  which is  the  foundation  for  stability  of political democracy.      Social democracy  means a  way of life which recognises liberty, equality and fraternity as principles of life. They are the  trinity. One cannot diverse from the other. Without equality, liberty  would produce  supremacy of  the few over the  many.   Equality  without   liberty  would  denude  the individual of  his initiative to improve excellence. Without fraternity, liberty  and equality would not nurture as their natural  habitat.   Social  and   economic  justice   is   a constitutional  right   to  socio-economic  justice  in  the trinity, the  preamble, Fundamental Rights and Directives is to make  the quality  of life  of there disadvantaged people meaningful.  Equal  protection  in  Article  14,  therefore, requires affirmative  action by  the state to those unequals by providing  facilities  and  opportunities.  The  question therein was:  whether   right to reservation is available to women belonging  by birth  to forward section of the society but married  to male  member of disadvantaged section of the society on  par with  the persons  from the  caste to  which reservation was  provided ?  In that  context, the  right to socio-economic  justice,   equality   and   fraternity   was considered and the above law was laid down.      Gandhiji, the  Father of  the Nation,  on  the  eve  of independence had  stated that  " independence  did not  mean mere freedom  from British  Rule by  breaking the  bonds  of slavery but it meant more than that. It meant justice to all citizens of India, irrespective of religion, caste, creed or language,  each   getting  his  legitimate  due".  The  42nd amendment Act  of the  constitution introduced, " secularism and socialism"  in the  preamble which  are implicit  in the Directives and  the Fundamental Rights read together. Social and  economic   justice  in   the  context   of  our  Indian constitution   must,   therefore,   be   understood   in   a comprehensive  sense  to  remove  every  inequality  and  to provide   opportunity to  all citizens  in social as well as economic justice  means  the  abolition  of  those  economic conditions which  ultimately result  in  the  inequality  of economic  values  between  mem.  It  means  to  establish  a democratic way  of life  built upon socio-economic structure

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 22  

of the society to make the rule of law dynamic.      Article 14  of the constitution is a shining star among the fundamental  rights which  guarantees equality  to every citizen  and  equal  protection  of  laws  to  all  persons. Equality before  laws ins correlative to the concept of rule of law  for all-round  evaluation of  healthy social  order. Directives  set   forth  social   principles  to   eliminate inequalities in  income, in  status and  opportunity and  to provide facilities  and opportunities  to every  citizen  to make the fundamental rights meaningful and the life of every citizen worth  living and  at its  best, with the dignity of person and  fraternity, lest  they remain empty- vessels and teasing illusions to majority population .      The constitution  adopted mixed economy and the planned development has  become a  constitutional scheme  to realise egalitarian  social   order.  The   second  Five  year  plan envisaged that  "The patron of development and the structure of the  socio-economic relation  should be  so planned  that they result in appreciable increase in income and employment but also  in greater  equality in  income and  wealth."  The Directives of  the state  policy have  delineated  in  broad spectrum  socio-economic   justice  to   all  people.   "The socialistic  patron  of  society  is  a  more  comprehensive expression   of    the   approach.   Economic   polity   and constitutional changes  have to  be planned in a manner that would ensure  economic advance  along  with  democratic  and egalitarian lines."      In the  Eighth Five  Year plan  1992-97,  the  planning commission, in  its blue-print  has stated  on  agricultural economy and  need for  stepping up  production in para 1.1.1 that agriculture and allied activities constitute the single largest contributor  to  the  Gross  Domestic  product(GDP), accounting for  almost 33%  if the  total. They are vital to the national  well-being as,  besides  providing  the  basic needs of  the society  and the raw materials for some of the important  segment   of  Indian   industry,   they   provide livelihood for  almost two  thirds of  the work  force.  The share of  the agricultural  products  in  the  total  export earnings, both  in primary  and  processed  forms,  is  very significant. In paragraph 1.2.7 Jute and Mesta, it is stated that the average production of jute and mesta in the seventh plan was  8.8  million  bales.  Inadequate  availability  of improved  seeds   and  retting   facilities  are   the  main constraints to increasing the production of quality jute and mesta. Development  of jute   and  mesta during  the seventh plan was  undertaken  through  a  special  Jute  Development program, funded  by the Ministry of Textiles. Use of natural fiber as  the packing  material is  on the revival trail and diverse jute  products are now exported. The minimum support price policy to the farmers and the role of Jute corporation of India  (JCI)   need to  be reviewed  for their  effective operation. It  is stated in para 1.11.1 that the Eighth plan aims at consolidating the gains from the base built over the years in  agricultural production sustaining the improvement in productivity  and  production.  To  meet  the  increasing demands of  the growing  population enlarging  the income of the farmers  and realising the country potential by stepping up agricultural  exports effective  steps are directed to be taken. In  paragraph 1.11.7,  it is  stated  that  marketing infrastructure has  to be further augmented and streamlined, especially in  respect of  perishable  commodities.  In  the light  of   the   technological   advancement   and   gains, agricultural produce  requires  to  promote  diversification within and outside the country which gains importance in the coming years.  In paragraph  1.11.9, it  is stated  that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 22  

changes in  the trade  policies  have  vastly  improved  the prospects for  realising the  full potential  of the country with its  varied agro-climatic  conditions from  tropical to temperate regions,  in  producing  commodities  for  export. Maximising  the   production  of   the  traditional   export commodities  etc.  requires  to  be  stepped  up  on  modern technologies and  sustained efforts  should be  made in  the coming years.  In paragraph  1.11.11, it  is stated that the promotion of   initiatives outside the Government to further socioeconomic development  is of  cardinal importance and is central to  the strategy  of the  Eighth plan.  In paragraph 1.11.12, it  is stated that many a programme and scheme will have to be continued from the previous plans, with necessary refinements or  modifications to  address themselves sharply to the  problems for  their overcome.  A policy  was made in eloquent terms  promising in  para 11  that "Government will endeavour to  create a  positive trade or investment climate for agriculture at  par with industries to develop effective systems and  to bestow  similar benefits  on agricultural as exit   in   industry.   They   issued   and   ensured   that agriculturists are  not subjected  to the regulatory and tax collection machinery of Government."      Article 38  of the  Constitution enjoins  the state  to strive to  promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as  effectively as  it may,  the social order in which justice-social,  economic and  political-shall, inform all the  institutions  of  the  national  life  striving  to minimise inequalities  in income  and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in  status, facilities,  opportunities  amongst individuals and groups of people residing in different areas or engaged  in  different  avocations.  As  stated  earlier, agriculture  is   the  main   stay  to  rural  economic  and empowerment of  the agriculturists.  Agriculture, therefore, is an  industry. To  the  tiller  of  the  soil,  livelihood depends on  the production  and return  of the  agricultural produce and  sustained agro-economic  growth.  The  climatic conditions throughout  Bharat are  not uniform. The climatic conditions throughout Bharat are not uniform. They vary from tropical to  moderate conditions.  Tillers of the soil being unorganised sector,  their voice  is scarcely  heard and was not even  remotely voiced  in these cases. Their fundamental right to cultivation is as a part of right to livelihood. It is a bastion of economic and social justice envisaged in the preamble and  Article 38  of  the  constitution.  As  stated earlier, the  rights, liberties  and privileges  assured  to citizen are  linked  with  corresponding  concept  of  duty, public order  and morality.  Therefore, the jural postulates form the foundation for the functioning of just society. The fundamental rights  ensured in part III are, therefore, made subject to  restrictions i.e. , public order in the interest of general  public. In  enliving the  fundamental rights and the public interest or public purpose in part IV Directives, parliament is  the best Judge to decide what is good for the community by  whose suffrage it comes into existence and the majority political  party assumed governance of the country. The Directive  principles  are  the  fundamentals  in  their manifestos.  Any   digression   is   unconstitutional.   The constitution enjoins upon the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary to  balance the  competing and  conflicting claims involved in  a dispute  so as  to  harmonise  the  competing claims to  establish an  egalitarian social  order. It  is a settled law  that the  Fundamental Rights  and the Directive principles are two wheels of the chariot; none of the two is less important than the other. Snap one, the other will lose its efficacy.  Together, they  constitute the  conscience of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 22  

the constitution to bring about social revolution under rule of law.  The Fundamental  Rights  and  the  directives  are, therefore, harmoniously interpreted to make the law a social engineer to provide flesh and blood to the dry bones of law. The Directives  would serve  the court  as a beacon light to interpretation. Fundamental Rights are rightful means to the end, viz.,  social and  economic  justice  provided  in  the Directives and  the preamble. The Fundamental Rights and the Directives establish  the trinity  of equality,  liberty and fraternity  in  an  egalitarian  social  order  and  prevent exploitation.      Social  justice,   therefore,  forms   the   basis   of progressive stability  in the  society and  human  progress. Economic justice  means abolishing  such economic conditions which removed  the inequality of economic value between man, concentration of wealth and means of production in the hands of a  few and  are detrimental  to the  vast. Law, therefore must seek to serve as a flexible instrument of socioeconomic adjustment   to   bring   about   peaceful   socio-econnomic revolution  under   rule  of   law.  The  constitution,  the fundamental supreme  lex  distributes  the  sovereign  power between the  Executive, the  Legislature and  the Judiciary. The three  instrumentalities, within their play endeavour to elongate the  constitutional basic  structure built  in  the preamble,  Fundamental   Rights  and   Directives,   namely, establishment of  an egalitarian social order in which every citizen receives  equality of  opportunity  and  of  status, social and  economic justice.  The  court,  therefore,  must strive to  give harmonious  interpretation to propel forward march  and  progress  towards  establishing  an  egalitarian social order.      From   this    perspective,   let   us   consider   the constitutionality  of   the  provisions   of  the  Act.  The statement and objects and the preamble of the Act, would, in unmistakable terms,  indicate that  it  intends  to  provide livelihood to  nearly 4  million rural agricultural families and 2.5  lacs industrial workers The ancient agro-based jute industry occupied  a significant  position in  our  national economy, in  particular in  the economy of the north-eastern region of the country. It is agro-based and labour-intensive industry. It  is also  an export-oriented  one and  its  raw material is  based entirely  on indigenous  jute produced by the  above   agricultural  families.   Parliament   avowedly intended to protect the interests of the persons involved in jute   production;   jute   industry,   therefore,   require protection.      A balanced  view of  the developments  in the  national economy requires  to be  taken into consideration to protect the interests  of the  farmers who produce jute or any other agricultural produce  and in  the  interests  of  agro-based industry of  the country  and workers  who deliver  finished products. with  that objective in view, the Act was made for compulsory use  of jute  packing material  in the supply and distribution of  certain  commodities  in  the  interest  of production of  raw jute  packing material  and  the  persons engaged in  the production thereof for the matters connected therewith. Section 3,4 and 5 reads thus:      "3.  (1)  Notwithstanding  anything      contained in  any other law for the      time being  in force,  the  Central      Government,   may,    if   it    is      satisfied,  after  considering  the      recommendations made  to it  by the      standing Advisory  committee,  that      it is  necessary so  to do  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 22  

    interest of  production of raw jute      and jute packaging material, and of      persons engaged  in the  production      thereof, by  order published  in to      time, that  such commodity or class      of commodities  or such  percentage      thereof, as may be specified in the      order, be  packed for  the purposes      of its  supply or  distribution  in      such jute packaging material as may      be specified in the order:      (a) the  existing level of usage of      jute material;      (b)  the   quantity  of   raw  jute      available;      (c) the  quantity of  jute material      available:      (d) the  protection of  interest of      persons   engaged   in   the   jute      industry and  in the  production of      row jute;      (e)   the    need   for   continued      maintenance of jute industry;      (f)  the  quantity  of  commodities      which, in its opinion, is likely to      be required  for  packing  in  jute      material;      (g)  such   other  matters  as  the      standing  Advisory   committee  may      think fit.      5. Where  an order  has  been  made      under  Section   3  requiring   any      commodity, class  of commodities or      any percentage thereof to be packed      in  jute   packaging  material  for      their supply  or distribution, such      commodity, class  of commodities of      percentage thereof  shall  not,  on      and from the date specified in such      order, be  supplied or  distributed      unsell  the   same  is   packed  in      accordance with that order:      Provided  that   nothing  in   this      section shall  apply to  the supply      or distribution  of  any  commodity      before that  date such  commodities      or three  months from the aforesaid      date  such  if  immediately  before      that  date  such  commodity  before      that date  such commodity, class of      commodities or  percentage, thereof      were being packaging material other      than jute packging material."      Provided that  until such  time  as      the standing  Advisory committee is      constituted under  section  4,  the      central  Government  shall,  before      making any  order under  this  sub-      section(2) of  section 4,  and  any      order  so   made  shall   cease  to      operator at the expiration of three      months from  the date  on which the      standing Advisory  committee  makes      its recommendations.      (2) Every  order  made  under  sub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 22  

    section      (1) shall  be laid,  as soon as may      be after  it is  made, before  each      House of parliament, while it is in      session,  for  a  total  period  of      thirty days  which may be comprised      in one  session or  in two  or more      successive sessions, and if, before      the   expiry    of   the    session      immediately following  the  session      or    the    successive    sessions      aforesaid,  both  Houses  agree  in      making  any   modification  in  the      order or both Houses agree that the      order should not be made, the order      shall thereafter  have effect  only      in such  modified form  or br of no      effect, as  the case  may  be;  so,      however, that any such modification      or  annulment   shall  be   without      prejudiced  to   the  validity   of      anything previously done under that      order. (emphasis supplied)      4.(1) The Central Government shall,      with  a  view  to  determining  the      commodity  thereof  in  respect  of      which jute packaging material shall      be   used    in   their    packing,      constitute  a   standing   Advisory      committee   consisting    of   such      Government the  necessary expertise      to give advise in the matter.      (2) The standing Advisory committee      shall,   after    considering   the      following  matters,   indicate  its      recommendations  to   the   central      Government, namely :      Sections 6  to 8 are machinery provisions. Section 9 to 11 are  penal provisions.  Section 16  gives  power  to  the Central Government,  to exempt  by notification published in the official  Gazette, any commodity or class of commodities from the  operation of  any order  made under section 3. The order should be laid under sub-section (2) before each House of parliament  as provided  therein. The orders issued under section 3  are subject  to modification  by the  parliament. Section  17   gives  rule-   making  power  to  the  central Government. Rules,  namely,  the  Jute  packaging  Materials (compulsory use  in packing  commodities) Rules,  1987  (for short,  the   ’Rules’)  were   made.  Rule  3  provides  for constitution of the commodities.      Sub-section (1)  of  section  3,  with  a  non-obstante clause, excludes,  excludes the  operation of  any other law for the  time being  in force  and, regulates use of jute or jute  packaging  material  in  supply  and  distribution  of certain  commodities.   It  gives   power  to   the  Central Government, on  being satisfied,  on  consideration  of  the recommendations  made   to  it   by  the  standing  Advisory Committee empowered to issue direction from time to time for use of  the packing material. The primary purpose and object of such  directions is  to protect the interests of producer of raw jute and jute making material. The Central Government is enjoined  to protect  the interests of persons engaged in the production thereof.  Such orders  should be published in the official Gazette. The orders need to be passed from time to time. From the date of such order specified therein, such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 22  

commodity  or   class  of  commodities  or  such  percentage thereof, as  specified in  the order  should be  packed with jute packaging  material specified  in there  order for  the purpose of  supply or  distribution  of  such  commodity  or commodities. Under the proviso, before making any order, the matter as  specified in  sub-section (2)  of section  4. The Central Government, may make an order thereunder which shall cease to operate at the expiration of 3 months from the date of the recommendations of the standing Advisory committee.      Every such  order shall  be laid  before each  House of parliament while  it is in session, for a period of 30 days. It would  be open to the parliament to make any modification to the  order. Both  the Houses of parliament may also agree that  such   order  should   not  be   made.  After   making modifications, if  any, such  amended or modified order will be the  operative order.  Any action  taken on  the on going order, before  modification, shall  be without  prejudice to the action already taken.      Under  sub-section   (1)  of  section  4,  the  central Government should  constitute a  standing Advisory committee consisting of  such persons  as have,  in its  opinion,  the necessary expertise to give advice in the matter with a view to determine  the  commodity  or  class  of  commodities  or percentage  thereof  in  respect  of  which  jute  packaging material shall be used in the packing. The standing Advisory committee,  after  considering  the  matters  enumerated  in clauses (a) to (9), would furnish its recommendations to the Government. Section  5 created  embargo on  the  supply  and distribution  of   such  specified  commodity  or  class  of commodities or  any percentage  thereof  with  reference  to which an  order under  section 3  came to be made. Rule 3 of the  Rules   carries  out   the  purpose  of  section  4  in establishment and  constitution  of  the  standing  Advisory committees consisting  of chairman and members not exceeding 20, nominated  by the central Government for a term of three years. The  date of the constitution of the committee and of filling up of all the vacancies and manner in which it is to be done is provided thereunder.      It is  true that  though a committee was constituted by the  central   Government,  in  addition  to    the  Advisor committee which  recommended to  the Government  to  abolish compulsory  use  of  jute  packing  material  by  1997,  the Government and  the Advisory  committee did  not consider it desirable to  completely phase  out compulsory  use of  Jute packaging Material.  It  issued  directions  for  compulsory packing of the commodities with jute packaging material with varying percentage.  In the  case of sugar, 100% use of jute packaging material is insisted to be continued.      The question,  therefore, is:  whether direction issued by the  central Government for the compulsory packing of the commodities with  jute packaging  material, [in  respect  of sugar 100%  use of  the gunny bags and at varying percentage for  other   commodities  is   unconstitutional?  As  stated earlier, the  Act aims  to accord  socio-economic justice to the tillers of the soil by protecting the cultivation of raw jute and  employment of  the workmen  engaged  in  the  jute manufacturing  industry.   Jute  is   being   produced   and manufactured  in   north-eastern  states,  West  Bengal  and Andhara Pradesh  etc.  as  mentioned  in  the  affidavit.  A reading of  the Debates  on the   floor of the parliament on the Bill,  does establish,  cutting across  the party lines, all  the   members  have   spoken  in  favour  of  directing compulsory use  of jute  packaging material (gunny bags) for supply  and  distribution  of  the  commodities.  As  stated earlier, the  object of  the benign  measure primarily is to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 22  

protect the  interests of  growers of  agricultural produce, who  cultivate  of  growers  of  agricultural  produce,  who cultivate raw  jute. Incidentally, the manufacturers and the workman get  benefit therefrom. Agricultural economy accords to the  grower socio-economic justice economy accords to the grower socio-economic justice to provided dignity of person, equality of opportunity to have his produce used in industry etc. Agriculture  is treated  as industry  on par  with  any other any  other industry.  the  state  should  provide.  by legislative  or   executive  measure   all  facilities   and opportunities to  get them  due price for their products and have them  marketed  for  use  in  are  made  subjection  to parliamentary control  and subject  to modification  by both Houses.      Equally, the  competing right  to  carry  on  trade  or business guaranteed  to a  citizen or  person is  also to be protected. In  the  clash  of  competing  rights  of  socio- economic  justice  of  the  producers  of  the  agricultural commodities and  of the  individual right  of a  citizen  to carry on  trade or  business, the  latter yield place to the paramount social  right. However,  as rightly pointed out by the counsel, a balances view has to be struck by the central Government in  directing use  of jute  packaging material at the percentage  of jute  bags  to  be  used  for  compulsory packing of the commodities which is subject to parliamentary control and  approval. Parliament  is the  spokesmen to  the people where  the need  is felt most accute. When the orders passed under  section 3  are subject  to modification by the parliament, parliament  preserved to itself a great salutary control over executive exercise of power under section 3(1). It is  such a  valuable public protection and safeguard kept with the  parliament itself.  Parliament would  be the  best Judge to  discuss in  each House as to what extent competing interests of  the agricultural  industry  and  the  industry involved in  commercial products  need to  be protected  and would  guide   the  central   Government  appropriately   by resolution or  otherwise. When  parliament  debates  on  the subject, it  focuses its  attention on  all its constituents and  it   would  be  open  to  debate,  on  the  subject  by participants from  all the  members of  the  parliament  and political parties  and of  shades of  opinion. Parliament is entitled to  direct the  Central Government  to place on the floor of  each House  the  necessary  factual  material  for discussion. They  are  the best judges to direct the central Government to act on their advice in a particular way, based on  the   existing  factual   material.  The  parliament  is empowered  to  overrule  of  the  central  Government  under section 3(1) by disapproval.      It is  a question  of fact,  to be  considered in  each case, as  to what  percentage is  required to  be used it is primarily  of   the  central  Government  to  be  decide  as executive policy.  The central  Government is  guided by the material placed  before it  and the advice tendered to it by the standing  Advisory committee constituted under Section 4 of the Act. It depends upon the availability of the jute and its products in the market, the quantum of raw jute produced by the  agriculturists, its  demand in  the market  and  its capability  for  diversification  into  other  industry  for ancillary use  of the  jute  material  and  hosts  of  other factors enter into the decision making process. The exercise is required to be undertaken from time to time. The Act, the Rules and the material placed before it by the Committee and the advice  tendered by  the expert body form the basis. The decision taken and directions issued cannot be said to smack of arbitrariness. Guidelines are available under the Act and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 22  

the Rules  made  in  this  behalf.  They  are  Parliamentary control. Paramount  public interest  is to  provide economic security and  equality and  justice to  the producers of the raw jute  and the workers engaged in manufacturing and other jute packaging material.      In Shri  Sitaram Sugar  Co. Ltd.  & Anr.  vs. Union  of India & Ors. [(1990) 3 SCC 223], the question arose; whether fixation of  price for  sugar under  Section 3  (3-C) of the Essential Commodities  Act, 1955  was an  administrative  or legislative function  and whether  the Court could interfere in fixation  of price  thereof? A Constitution Bench of this Court had  held that price fixation is legislative function. In paragraph  57, it  was held  that judicial  review is not concerned with  matters of  economic policy.  The Court does not substitute  its judgment  for that of the Legislature or its agents  as to matters within the province of either. The Court does  not supplant  the "feel of the expert" by it own views. When  the Legislature  acts within  the sphere of its authority and  delegates power  to its agent, it may empower the agent  to make  findings of  fact which  are  conclusive provided such  findings satisfy  the test of reasonableness. In all  such cases,  judicial inquiry  is  confined  to  the question whether  the findings  of fact are reasonably based on evidence and whether such findings are sustainable at law of the land. Judicial function in respect of such matters is exhausted  when  the  court  finds  rational  basis  to  the conclusion reached  by the  authority.  In  the  matters  of policy and  planning, it should adopt one or other system of control in  the best economic interest of the sugar industry and  the   general  public   grouping  sugar   factories  on geographical-cum-agro-economic  factors   to  determine  the price. It  was held  that the fixation of price to the sugar was not amenable to judicial review.      In R.K.  Garg etc.  vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1981) 4 SCC  675],   when  Special   Bearer  Bonds  (Immunities  and Exemptions) Act,  1981 was  challenged in  this Court  under Article 32 of the Constitution, this Court per majority, had held that  legislation particularly  in economic matters, is essentially empiric  and it  is  based  on  experimentation. There may be crudities, inequities and even possibilities of abuse but on that account alone, it cannot be struck down as invalid. These  can always be remedied by the legislature by passing amendments.  The Court  must, therefore, adjudge the constitutionality of  such legislation  by the generality of its provisions  and not  by its  crudities. Laws relating to economic activities  should be  viewed with greater latitude than laws  touching civil rights such as freedom to speak or practise any  religion. There  is always  a  presumption  in favour of the constitutionality of the Act. Burden is on the petitioner to show that there has been a clear transgression of constitutional  principles. The  legislature  understands and correctly  appreciates the  needs of its own people; its laws are  directed to  problems made  manifest by experience and its  discrimination is  based on  adequate  grounds.  In adjudging, the  Court may  take  into  consideration  common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the time and may assume every state of affairs which can be conceived of as  existing at the time of legislation. The Act was made and held to be valid.      In Morey  vs. Doud  [354 Us  457 =  L.Ed. 2nd 1485], in dissenting  judgment,  Frankfaster,  J.  held  that  in  the utilities, tax,  economic regulation  cases  judicial  self- restraint, if not judicial deference to legislative judgment was emphasised.  The court  is always  to remember  that the parliament has  affirmative responsibility to solve problems

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 22  

that were  felt most  accute. In economic measure, the court while claiming  the constitutionality  of a legislation must defer to legislative judgment.      In Peerless  General Finance  & Investment  Co. Ltd.  & Anr. VS.  Reserve Bank  of India  [(1992) 2 SCC 343], one of us, K.  Ramaswamy, J., in a separate but concurrent judgment held in  paragraph 69  that it  is well settled law that the court is  not tribunal  from the crudities and inequities of complicated   experimental    economic   legislation.    The discretion in  evolving economic  measures, rests  with  the policy makers  and not  with the  judiciary.  Indian  social order is  beset with social and economic inequalities and of status, and  in our  socialist secular, democratic republic, inequality is  an anathema  to social  and economic justice. The Reserve  Bank of  India Act  assigned the  power to  the Reserve Bank  of India  to regulate  monetary system and the experimentation of  the economic  legislation, can  best  be left to  the executive  unless it is found to be unrealistic or manifestly  arbitrary. Even  id a  law  is  found  to  be wanting  on  trial,  it  is  better  that  its  defects  are demonstrated and  removed by  amendment than that law should be aborted  by judicial  fiat. Such an assertion of judicial power  deflects   responsibilities  from  those  on  whom  a democratic society  ultimately rests.  The court  has to see whether  the   scheme,  measure  or  regulation  adopted  is relevant or  appropriate  to  the  power  exercised  by  the authority. In  that  case,  the  directions  issued  by  the Reserve Bank  of India  for regulating the money circulation were held valid.      In City  of New  Oreleans vs. Nancy dukes [427 US 297 = 49  L.Ed.   2nd  511   at  518),   the  dissenting  view  of Frankfaster, J.  was upheld  and the  court had stated that" Morey was  the  only  case  in  the  last  half  century  to invalidate a  wholly economic  regulation  solely  on  equal protection and  now we  are satisfied  that the decision was erroneous".      In Charles  Roberts &  Co. Ltd.  vs.  British  Railways Board [(1965)  1 W.L.R.   396]  , the  chancery Division had held that,  in general, Judges are not qualified to the said questions of  economic policy  and such  questions by  their nature are not justiciable. But, in England, judicial review of parliamentary  enactment was not available. That decision may not be of much assistance.      Robert Jackson,  J. in  H.P. Hood  &  sons  vs.  Dumond (1949), had  stated that our system is that every farmer and every craftsman  shall  be  encouraged  to  produce  by  the certainty that  he will  have free access to every market in the nation,  that no  home embargo will withhold his exports and  that  no  foreign  state  will  by  custom,  duties  or regulation exclude  them [vide: The Encyclopedia of American Constitution  on  the  chapter  Economic  Analysis  and  the constitution at  page 597]. At page 598, it is stated that " since  1937,   the  court   has  consistently   declined  to invalidate economic  legislation on  substantive due process grounds  and   has  stubbornly   refused  to   subject  such legislation to even minimal review". Economic analysis is an acquired taste; courts should not insist that legislature be educated in basic economic concepts let alone that they keep abreast of  the  current  literature  on  externalities  and public goods.  Most  economists  would  acknowledge  that  a legislature  may   properly  choose  to  sacrifice  economic efficiency in  order to achieve some desired distribution of wealth among  social groups.  Even if  a private  conduct is economically  acceptable,   a  legislature   could  properly conclude that   the conduct is interpersonally unfair in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 22  

particular way, it enables to cause harm to people.      It would,  thus, be  clear that   the Court is not will equipped to  adjudge crudities  and inequities emerging from economic  legislation.   The  legislature  is  empowered  to experiment on  economic legislation in its attempt to remove inequalities in  income or  status  or  provide  social  and economic justice  to the society or a particular descernable segments of  society or  toe remove  the  defect  where  the legislature felt  most acute. There is always presumption in favour of constitutionality. The legislature appreciates the needs of  the people  and directs  the laws  to the problems made manifest  by experience  and discrimination is based on adequate grounds.  The court  does not supplant the feel and experiment  of  the  expert  by  its  own  views.  Court  in deference to  legislative judgement,  imposes self-restraint to adjudge  on crudities and experiment but concern  on core constitutionality.      Another serious  contention of  the petitioners is that the Act  is a  class legislation intended to benefit a small sector of jute or the producers of raw jute or their workmen while the total impact on the consumers at large or right to trade   or    business    in    another    commodities    is disproportionately large.  Therefore, the Act is ultra vires as devoid  of substance.  The diversity  is so  vast that no comparison would  be possible in terms of population. In the entire south  India, paddy  cultivation is  primary  economy while in  Kerala spices and in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu  sugarcane, Tobacco,  pulses,  cotton  and  other commercial commodities  would supplement  paddy cultivation. In  Gujarat   and  Maharashtra,   commercial   crops   would supplement the paddy cultivation. In coastal Andhra Pradesh, jute also  is cultivated as a second crop. In other areas in south Eastern region, as is evident, apart from agriculture, jute  also  is  the  main  agricultural  product.  In  Uttar Pradesh, sugarcane  gets intensive  cultivation  apart  from paddy and  wheat. In Gangatic platue, apart from agriculture intensive sugarcane  cultivation is  the special feature. In Punjab  and  Haryana,  wheat    and    paddy  are  the  main cultivation.  In   Rajasthan,   bazra,   pulses   etc.   are cultivated.  Throughout   the  country  but  cultivation  of agriculture produce  is  the  sole  resource  of  the  rural population as  majority is  compared to  urban population in the country.  It is,  therefore, clear  that raw agriculture produce is  an input  of  finished  product  for  commercial purposes and its regulation, by the Acts or Rules or orders, cannot be  assailed as  ultra vires  the legislature  on the basis of  the  population  of  the  agriculturists  when  it affects  consumer   public  or   manufacturers  of  finished products  whose   business   avocation   incidentally   gets affected. On  that account, the Act cannot be declared  void or Ultra vires the power of the parliament to enact the law.      The main  Plank of  the petitioners,  to  demolish  the validity of the Act as ultra vires of Article 19(1) (9) , is founded on  the ratio  in Chintaman  Rao vs.  The  state  of Madhya Pradesh  [(1950) SCR  759]. The central Provinces and Berar  Regulation   of  Manufacture  of  Bidis  (Agriculture purposes) Act  (LXIV of  1948), (pre-consolidation  Act) was made empowering the Deputy commissioner by a notification to fix a  period to  be agricultural  season  with  respect  to specifies villages  to prohibit deployment of labour in bidi manufacturing of  bidis in certain villages which came to be challenged under  Article 32 of the constitution. This court had held  that the object of the statute being a measures to provide supply  of adequate labour for agricultural purposes in the  area of  the province,  the purpose  would have been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 22  

achieved by  legislation restricting  the employment  of the agricultural labour  in the manufacture of bidis during  the aforesaid season  without prohibiting altogether manufacture of bidis themselves. Therefore, it was held that the Act has no reasonable relation to the object in view and it did  not impose any reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the constitution. Reasonable  restriction cannot that there is a limitation imposed  in enjoyment  of the  right which should not be  arbitrary or  excessive in  nature  beyond  what  is required in  the  interest  of  the  public.  Reasonableness implies intelligent  care and deliberation, i.e., the choice of  a   course  which   reason  dictates   an  arbitrary  or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain  the quality of  reasonableness unless  it strikes proper balance between the  freedom guaranteed  under Article 19(1) (9) and the social control permitted under clause (6) of Article 19, must be  held to be wanting to be reasonable. As pointed out by this  court, the legislature could have prohibited use of labour during  the particular  period of agricultural season in the area in which bidis are manufactured; instead the Act permitted the  offer to  issue notification  imposing  total prohibition on manufacture of bides. It was, therefore, held that it  was unreasonable  restriction not  saved by Article 19(6). Far from helping appellants, the ratio indicates that if the Act strikes a reasonable balance between the exercise of the fundamental rights and reasonable restrictions in the interest of  the general  public, the Act would be valid. In Narendra Kumar  & ors.  vs. The  Union of India & ors. [1960 (2)  SCR   375].  This  court  upheld  imposition  of  total prohibition  in  the  purchase  and  import  of  copper  and fixation of  the prices in view of policy of eliminating the dealers from  such trade  as not  violative of Article 19(a) (9) of  the  constitution.  It  was  held  that  restriction includes total  prohibition. In view of the foreign exchange crunch, the  prohibition on  import of copper, lead etc. Was upheld that  the  court  is  to  see  whether  the  test  of reasonableness is  satisfied by  considering the question in the background  of factual  circumstances  under  which  the order came to be made, taking into account the nature of the evil that was sought to be remedied by law, the ratio of the harm caused  to the  individual  citizens  by  the  proposed remedy, the  beneficial effect  reasonably expected  to  the general public  and whether  the restrain  caused by the law was more  than necessary  in the  interest  of  the  general public. In  M/s. Dwarka  Prasad Laxmi  Narayan  vs.  Stateof Utter Pradesh  & Two ors. [(1954) SCR 803], it was held that regulating the  trade or   business  in  normally  available commodities was  unreasonable. U.P.  coal control  order had given absolute power to the licensing authority to renew the licence under the order. In that case, since the commodities were freely  available in  the market,  it was held that the restriction was  not a  reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of  the constitution.  It is  not necessary  to pursue this reasoning after the Essential commodities Act, 1955 was enacted giving  power to  regulate  distribution,  sale  and supply of  the essential  commodities to  general public and fixing prices thereof.      In Parvej  Aktar &  Ors. vs.  Union of India & Ors. [JT 1993 (1)  SC 453],  a Bench  of three Judges was to consider the reservation of certain articles for exclusive production by the hand-looms whether violative of Articles 19 and 14 of the constitution.  This court held that there is no question of monopoly  create in  favour  of  the  handloom  industry. Certain  articles   were  reserved   for  the   handloom  on traditional looms  engaged since  1950. Recently,  when  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 22  

power-loom  started   manufacturing  the  items  which  were traditionally  being  manufactured  by  the  handlooms  that caused  a   serious  inroad   into  the  handloom  industry. Consequently, the  stepped into  the business  and regulated the use of certain specified articles for being manufactured by handlooms  with traditional  methods. Same is the view in G.T.N. Textiles  Ltd. & Anr. vs. Assistant Directors, R.O.T. Commissioner &  ors. [JT  1993 (2) SC 416]. Therein, pack of yarn was  regulated by  direction issued  by notification by the  Textile  commissioner  to  use  certain  percentage  of production in  hank form. Clause 16 of the Textile (control) order, 1986  was challenged  as violative  of Articles 19(1) and 14  noticing that the Textile (control) order was issued only in respect of packing yarn in hank form exclusively for handloom sector  which is  the largest  cottage industry  in India. The  regulation  was  held  to  be  not  ultra  vires Articles 19  and  14  but  a  reasonable  restriction  under Article 19(6).      In Municipal  corporation of  the city  of Ahmedabad  & ors. vs  Jan Mohammed  Usmanbhai & Anr. [(1986) 3 SCC 20], a constitution Bench  of this  court held  that  normally  the legislature is  best judge of what is good for the community but the  court should  not shirk  its duty  to determine the validity of  the law.  In determining  the reasonableness of the restriction  imposed by the law under Article 19(6), the court  cannot  proceed  on  a  general  notion  of  what  is reasonable in  the abstract  or even  on a  consideration of what is reasonable from the view of the person or persons on whom the restrictions are imposed. The court has to consider whether the  restrictions are  reasonable in the interest of the general  public. The question of the interest of general public  is   of  wide  import  comprehending  public  order, economic welfare  of the public, public security, morals and the objects  mentioned in the Directive principles. The test of reasonableness  has to  be viewed  in the  context of the issues which  faced the  legislature. In  constructing  such laws and  judging their  validity, courts  must approach the problem from  the point  of view  of furthering  the  social interest which is the purpose of the legislation to promote. They are  not in  these matters  functioning in vacuo but as part of  society which  is trying,  by the  enacted law,  to solve the  problems  and  further  the  moral  and  material progress of the community as a whole.      In Sushila  Saw Mill vs. State of Orissa & ors. [(1995) 5 SCC 615], the orissa saw mills and saw pits (control) Act, 1991 and  in particular  section 4 thereof was challenged as violative of Articles 19(1) (g) and 301 of the constitution. Section 4  imposed  restriction  on  establishing  saw  mill within the  notified prohibited  zones. It was held that the right to  carry on  trade or  business is  subject to public interest. The  restriction imposed  total bar  on saw  mills operating in  the prohibited  area. Prohibition was held not violative either  of Article  14 or 301. It was held that it is  class   regulation   to   protect   forest.   Therefore, prohibition on  establishing saw mills within the prohibited zone cannot be on geographical contiguity and was held to be reasonable restriction  in the interest of society. In State of Kerala  vs. Joseph  Antony [(1994)  1  SCC  301],  Kerala marine Fishing  Regulation Act,  1980 and  the  notification issued under  section 4(1)  thereof, prohibiting  fishing by mechanized vessels  in territorial  waters by  use of  gears like purse,  seine, ring  seine, pelagic trawl and mid-water trawl etc.  were challenged  as violative  of Article  19(1) (g). In  considering the  above  question,  this  court,  in paragraph 9,  had held  that  the  court  has  to  keep  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 22  

background facts  of social  and marine  life at the back of the mind  of the  court to  appreciate the issue involved in the case.  After careful  examination, this  court had  held that the  High court  was not  right in  striking  down  the notification on  the ground  that the  Government had issued two fresh notifications on the basis of the report submitted by the  special officers. In paragraphs 20, confining to the fact of 98.5% of the fishing corporation who were engaged in the traditional  fishing were pushed below the poverty line. Therefore, it  was held  that the  Act was  to protect their rights. This court had upheld the regulatory measure.      In Kerala  Swathanthra Malaya  Thozhilali Federation  & ors. Kerala  Trawlnet Board  operators  Association  &  ors. [(1994) 5 SCC 23]. the Kerala marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1980 (10  of  1981)  and  the  Rules  made  thereunder  were challenged on  the ground  that restrictions  upon  all  the boats or  all the  horse power of the engine and particulars of fishing  gear to  be carried  in  boats going for bottom- trawling beyond  territorial  waters,  was  impugned  to  be violative of  Article 19(1)  (g). This  court negatived  the contention holding  that regulation  was intended  to ensure livelihood to  lacs and lacs of fisherman engaged in fishing by traditional methods.      The next  question is:  whether the prohibition of 100% use of gunny bags by sugar industry and 70% by the cement is reasonable? It is true that the committee constituted by the Government had recommended to phase out use of gunny bags on the ground  that in  a free  market.  It  is  not  justified primarily to  encourage free  market. It  is seen  that  the state has not abandoned and cannot abandon the mixed economy and  power  of  regulation  as  mandated  by  constitutional policy. The Act was made in implementation of socio-economic equality and  policies. Even a private industry by operation of Directive  contained in  part IV,  is bound to adopt them implement them  and the  Government policies to establish an egalitarian social  order. The  committee in its free market frenzy became  oblivion of  the policy  resolution of Eighth Five year  plan, the  Trinity, Preamble,  Fundamental Rights and Directives.  The executive policy of the state  would be cognizant to  these mandated  which should  always bind  the Government and  all agencies  including private agencies. As seen, the Advisory committee constituted under section 4 has recommended 100%  use of  packing the sugar with gunny bags. On consideration  of the  report, the  Government had  acted upon the  same. the economic policy to render socio-economic justice to  the growers  of the  raw jute and the workman is based on the above constitutional policy. Lest the report of the committee  on the basis of the free market economy would be in negation of the preamble, the Directive principles and the  Fundamental   Rights  to   economic  justice   to   the agriculturists. So  the contention is clearly unsustainable. The  standing   Advisory  commit,  therefore,  had  properly advised and  the Government  obviously has taken decision to continue the  policy of compulsory packing of commodities or class of commodities with jute bags, regulated under section 3 the Act. The parliament did not negate the same.      The  further   contention  that   on  account   of  the regulation, HDPE  industry has become unviable and is on the brink of liquidation and the Act tends to create monopoly in favour of  private industry  which does  not get  protection under Art.  19(6),  is  untenable.  This  viability  of  the respective  industries.   It  would   be  for   the  central Government and  parliament and  not for  this court  to take into consideration  declaring the Act as void. The court has to see  whether  the  Act  serves  public  purpose  and  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 22  

restriction are reasonable. The Advisory committee goes into factual details.  The Government  examines and  takes policy decision. It lays the order on the table of both the Houses. The parliament  controls exercise  of   policy. Restrictions are in-built and self-evident.      Further contention  that the  jute is being import from Bangladesh which  would show that no adequate supply of jute is available  in India and that no gunny bags are adequately available to  meet the growing demand of sugar industry etc. , cannot be given acceptance. It is state by the respondents that imported  jute from  Bangladesh is  a finer quality for use as  a component  in exportable jute products but not for domestic  consumption.   It  is  next  contended  that  jute production has fallen due to decrease in the cultivated area of raw  jute and the order to use gunny bags as arbitrary is without  force.  From  the  report  submitted  by  the  jute industry and  from the  Eight Five year plan material, it is seen that  considerable increase in the quantity of the jute is produced. The further contention is that the Act is aimed to benefit only the manufacturers of jute who has taken huge sums as  loans or  subsidy from  the central  Government for modernisation of their industry; They have diversified their production for  export. Neither  the workman nor the growers of the  jute are  benefited from  the regulation.  We cannot decide the  validity of  the Act  on that basis. May be that there does not appear to be any control on the prices of the raw jute  supplied by  the farmers to the jute factories. If that is   the situation, the Government should look into the problem and  met out  justice to  the  producers  for  whose benefits the  Act was  primarily enacted.  Corrective  steps should be taken to protect the interests of the growers. For the labour,  they demands.  But on  that  account,  the  Act cannot be struck down.      The  further   contention  that  since  the  Act  is  a temporary  measure   to  benefit   the  jute  industry,  the regulation  should  be  phased  out  gradually,  is  without substance. From  the Eighth  plan and  the Resolution, it is evident  that   the  Government   intends  to  continue  the regulation. The  further contention  that the  jute products are  being   diversified  and   the  need   for  regulation, therefore, no  longer subsists  , cannot  be accepted. It is for the  Central Government  to take  into consideration, on the basis  of the  material placed  before it,  as  to  what extent the  regulation would  need modification. The further contention is  since no  adequate supply of the jute bags is available to  meet the  demand, the  order is bad in law and cannot be  gone into to invalidate the Act on that basis. It would be for the Central Government subject to parliamentary control to  take a  decision  and  equally  of  the  alleged wastage.      Yet another  contention that  requires consideration is that in  the committee  constituted under  section 4(1) only secretaries  represented   and   no   one   represents   the petitioners in the committee and that, therefore, the Act is void. This  contention also  cannot  be  accepted  as  sound principle of  law. However,  as seen  from the  record,  the committee consists  of the  secretaries representing various of industries  through  recognised  office  bearers  of  the associations may  be nominated  or given  notice before  the Advisory committee meets to place their view and material in support thereof   to  evaluate the  need for  regulation and extent of  regulation thereof.  The persons representing the particular   advice    the   Government    before    issuing directions/orders under section 3. The provisions of the Act contain  guidelines   as  is   self-evident.  Socio-economic

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 22  

justice is the public policy. It is subject to parliamentary control. They  bear reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act.      Considered from  this perspective,  we  hold  that  the provisions of  sections 3,  4 and  5 are  not  violative  of Article 14  or 19(1)  (g) of  the constitution.  The Act and orders impose  reasonable restriction saved by Article 19(6) of the constitution.      There is  no restriction  on the stream of transport of commodities or  class thereof  by the  citizens nor is there any impediment on its movement by the Act. The Act regulates only packing of the commodities or class of commodities with jute packaging  material. Transportation  on account thereof stands no  impediment for  the said  trade and commerce. The commerce clause  in Art.301, therefore, stands no impediment for free  flow of  trade and commerce in the commodities for free flow of trade and commerce in the commodities for class of  commodities  covered  by  the  provisions  of  the  Act. Considered from  this perspective,  we hold  the Act  is not violative of Article 301 of the constitution.      The Transfer  cases and  writ petitions are accordingly dismissed and  the applications  disposed  of  but,  in  the circumstances, with  costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- payable to the  supreme court legal Aid committee within a period of three months  from the  date of  receipt of  this order.  On failure thereof,  it would  open to  the supreme court Legal Aid  committee   to  have  this  order  executed  as  decree according to law.