ABSTRACT
The Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including the right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business under Article 19(1)(g). However, this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) to ensure social welfare and public interest. The landmark judgment in Excel Wear v. Union of India (1979) redefined the balance by affirming the employer right to close a business as an intrinsic part of this fundamental right. This paper examines the judicial interpretation of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6), focusing on the rationale and implications of Excel Wear. It explores the judgment and its impact on labour rights, industrial policies, and subsequent legal developments. Additionally, the paper compares Indian jurisprudence with international approaches, aiming to contribute to the discourse on balancing economic freedoms and social justice.
- Introduction
A strong democracy is a system that upholds individual rights while ensuring the collective good. Various fundamental rights are granted to the citizen of the Indian Constitution which is a reflection of this philosophy. One of these is Article 19 (1) (g) which guarantees the liberty to follow any profession or carry on any profession, trade, or business. But unbridled liberty can result in social disparity and economic imbalance. Recognizing this, the Constitution provides for such reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6 )so that the individual liberties should not be at the cost of society welfare. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Excel Wear v. Union of India made a landmark ruling on the interpretation of these restrictions, especially with respect to the employers’ right to shut down a business. The Excel Wear case is an example of this broader trend, and this paper reflects on the motivations and consequences of the judgment by assessing its significance for labour rights, industrial policy, and constitutional jurisprudence. It examines also various interpretations of Indian judiciary in comparison to understanding of various other international practices and offers way forward for better equilibrium