Article 19(6): Reasonable Restrictions on Trade and Profession

Can the State tell you how to run your shop? Yes, but only within limits. Article 19(6) is the clause that sets those limits. It lets the law restrict your freedom to work, trade or do business. But the restriction must be reasonable and must serve the general public.

1Chapter 1: The Right and Its Limits

Must Know

What does Article 19(1)(g) protect?

• Citizens may practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business.
• A teacher, a shopkeeper and a manufacturer all fit here.
• The freedom is not absolute. A law may limit it if Article 19(6) is met.
• Take surgery as an example. A rule that a person must have proper training before operating protects patients. This explains why qualification rules exist. It does not describe every rule on medical practice.
• A “public interest” label alone does not make a law valid. The court looks at the law itself.

How is Article 19(6) built?

• The main rule: reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public. Both parts matter.
• Sub-clause (i): necessary professional or technical qualifications.
• Sub-clause (ii): trade, business, industry or service run by the State or a corporation it owns or controls.
• Citizens may be shut out completely, shut out partly, or left to compete alongside the State.
• A State monopoly gets specific protection. But the protection does not cover every rule attached to the monopoly law. More on this below.
• Article 19(2) lists specific speech grounds. Article 19(6) uses the wider words “general public”.

The constitutional text

• Article 19(6) says: “Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause”. It adds that this covers (i) professional or technical qualifications, and (ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.
• Read Articles 19, 21, 300A and 366 and the Seventh Schedule in the official Constitution of India.

2Chapter 2: What Changed in 1951

Good to Know

The First Amendment

• The First Amendment (1951) added express protection for State business and monopolies.
• Professional and technical qualifications were already in the original text.
• The amendment reworked the latter part of Article 19(6). It kept qualifications in sub-clause (i) and added State business in sub-clause (ii).
• Its stated aim was to remove doubt about nationalisation schemes. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons called the change clarificatory.
• The background was a dispute over State transport monopolies. The Allahabad High Court’s Moti Lal decision is a well-known example. The Supreme Court retold this story in Akadasi Padhan.
• So “qualifications and State monopoly both first appeared in 1951” is wrong.
• Read section 3(1)(b) and the opening Statement of Objects and Reasons in the First Amendment Act, 1951. The Supreme Court’s Golak Nath judgment reproduces the original and amended wording in its appendix.

3Chapter 3: Business Closure

Good to Know

Can the State stop a business from closing?

• The freedom to carry on business includes a right to close it. Even this can face reasonable limits that protect the public.
• In Excel Wear v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court struck down the old section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act.
• The old rule lacked fair procedure. It could force an employer to carry on despite serious trouble.
• The government’s refusal had no effective appeal or review.
• This did not make every prior-permission rule invalid. In Orissa Textile and Steel (2002), the Court upheld a revised section 25-O.
• The revised scheme had an inquiry, a hearing, recorded reasons, review or reference safeguards, and time limits.
• The lesson is about fair safeguards. It is not a right to close overnight. Workers’ interests and the employer’s freedom must both be weighed.
• Sources: Excel Wear judgment; the Supreme Court’s 2025 closure judgment, which discusses Excel Wear and Orissa Textile.

4Chapter 4: Qualifications, Existing Laws and State Business

Great to Know

Qualifications and existing laws

• A qualification rule sets a standard for entering an activity. Article 19(6)(i) expressly allows necessary ones.
• Picture a law that requires recognised training before someone treats patients independently. The link between training and safety explains why it serves the public.
• But a rule is not valid just because it is called a qualification. Its substance still matters.
• Existing laws are not immune from challenge. The clause protects them only within its terms. The “reasonable and in the general public interest” test still applies.
• Article 366(10) defines “existing law” as a law made before the Constitution began, unless the context says otherwise. The 1951 amendment does not reset this to every law existing in 1951.
• Article 19(6) also allows new laws. But the legislature must separately have the power to make that law.

State business, monopoly and nationalisation

• State business need not always be a monopoly. The words “or otherwise” allow the State to work alongside private firms.
• Complete exclusion, partial exclusion and competition are three different arrangements.
• A State monopoly reserves an activity for the State or its qualifying corporation.
• Nationalisation may also mean taking over private assets. That raises separate questions about legislative power and property. Article 300A needs authority of law to deprive anyone of property.
• So the monopoly clause does not make every nationalisation scheme automatically valid. Article 31C is a separate protection with its own conditions. See Article 31C of the Constitution.

Who can claim this freedom?

• Article 19 rights belong to citizens. Article 21 covers every person.
• A company is not a citizen under Article 19.
• But in R. C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970), the Court recognised that a shareholder’s own rights can be hurt. The company form does not always block such a claim. So avoid the shortcut that companies and shareholders can never raise any Article 19 issue.
• The words profession, occupation, trade and business cover many activities. But not every activity called a business gets protection. The claim must first be established.
• Even a protected activity can face a justified prohibition, not just light regulation.
• Article 301 is separate. It covers freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse across India. See Article 301: Freedom of Trade, Commerce and Intercourse and Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
• Source: Supreme Court, R. C. Cooper judgment.

5Chapter 5: Exam Distinctions

Great to Know

Speech versus business

• Article 19(2) lists grounds such as public order, decency or morality, and defamation.
• Article 19(6) uses the general-public-interest standard for ordinary business limits.
• For related speech practice, see CDS II 2021, Q75. Use it to compare the clauses.

Can a restriction be a total ban?

• Yes. In Narendra Kumar v. Union of India (decided 3 December 1959, reported 1960), the Court held that a restriction can include prohibition.
• A ban needs closer scrutiny. The Court checks the justification and effect, not the label.
• But Article 19(6) does not allow any restriction the government merely prefers. Link public interest to a reasonable means.
• Read the whole question before eliminating an option. A short statement may name one valid requirement without stating the full test.
• Source: Narendra Kumar judgment.

How far does the monopoly protection go?

• In Akadasi Padhan v. State of Orissa (5 December 1962, reported 1963), the Court looked at a State monopoly in kendu leaves.
• The monopoly itself is protected from the ordinary 19(1)(g) reasonableness challenge.
• But the cover reaches only provisions essential to the monopoly. It does not reach every incidental rule in the law.
• The Court tested the price-fixing rule under the ordinary reasonableness test.
• It also rejected arrangements that let supposed State agents trade on their own account.
• A private business does not become State business because the law calls it so. Article 14 equality also stays a separate check. See Right to Equality: Article 14.
• Source: Akadasi Padhan judgment.

6In the News: The Online Gaming Act

Current Affairs

• The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act got the President’s assent on 22 August 2025.
• Assent and commencement are different events. Section 1(3) needed a separate notification.
• A notification dated 22 April 2026 set 1 May 2026 as the start.
• The Act bans offering online money games and related services. It also bans their advertisements and the fund transfers that help them.
• Its definition of online money games covers skill, chance or both, once the money-or-stakes conditions are met. E-sports, as the Act defines them, are left out.
• The Act also provides for promoting e-sports and online social games. So “all online gaming was banned” is wrong.
• To analyse such a law, first identify the activity and the protection claimed. Then separate its reasonableness from the legislature’s power to make it.
• Betting and gambling are in Entry 34 of the State List. That raises a question of legislative power. It does not alone decide every issue about an online-gaming law.
• This explains the enacted text and the notified start. As far as the sources checked on 20 September 2026 show, no court has finally upheld or struck down the Act.
• Sources: Act and corrected text; commencement notification. The earlier PIB announcement describes the 2025 legislation.

Quick Q&A

• Which clause limits business? Article 19(6).
• 1951 added? State business and monopolies.
• Excel Wear year? 1978.
• Orissa Textile year? 2002.
• Online Gaming Act in force? 1 May 2026.