DHARMASHASTRA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY,
JABALPUR (M.P.)

SUBJECT – Administrative Law

PROJECT TOPIC – Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur And Ors. vs

The State Of Punjab on 12 April, 1955

SUBMITTED TO : Mrs. Ruchira Chaturvedi

Ms. Bhagyashree Agarwal

SUBMITTED BY : KANISHKA KHATRI

BALLB/130/23
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The completion of this project required assistance from many people and I’m really thankful
towards them for their guidance in my project. I would like to express my deep gratitude
towards my teacher , Mrs. Ruchira Chaturvedi and Ms. Bhagyashree Agarwal who took
an acute interest in my project and guided me all along. I’m feeling extremely privileged to
have him as my instructor in the project. This project helped me in gathering a lot of
knowledge and becoming more aware of things related to my topic. I would like to extend my
gratitude to my parents and friends for their valuable support and advice. I am making this
project not only for academic score but also to enhance my knowledge. In the end I would
like to thank everyone who helped me and invested their valuable time for this project.

Regards,

KANISHKA KHATRI

BALLB/130/23
 Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur And Ors. vs The State Of Punjab
on 12 April, 1955
Abstract:
Imagine waking up one day to find that the government has taken over your industry
overnight, leaving you with no choice but to shut down your business. This is precisely what
happened in the case of Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955), where the Punjab
government sought to monopolize the educational publishing sector, effectively pushing
private publishers out of the market. The case raised a critical constitutional question: Can the
executive branch of the government engage in trade or business without explicit legislative
approval? The Supreme Court's decision in this landmark case reshaped the understanding of
executive power within India's democratic framework, reinforcing the principles of
separation of powers and the need for legislative sanction in matters impacting fundamental
rights.

The controversy began with a series of regulatory changes in Punjab’s education system post-
Partition. Traditionally, private publishers submitted textbooks for government approval, and
a list of selected books was provided to schools for use. However, in 1952, the Punjab
government issued an executive order that sidelined publishers entirely. The new system
allowed only authors to submit books for approval, and those selected were required to
transfer their copyrights to the government. This meant that private publishers, who had long
been involved in printing and distributing textbooks, were suddenly left with no role in the
process, threatening their businesses and livelihoods.

A group of publishers, led by Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur, challenged this move, arguing
that it violated their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution,
which guarantees the freedom to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or
business. They contended that the government’s decision was an overreach of executive
power, as it lacked legislative backing and effectively created a state monopoly over textbook
publishing. Additionally, they argued that the government's requirement for authors to
transfer copyrights amounted to an unlawful deprivation of property, which at the time was
protected under Article 31 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled in favor of the government but clarified
crucial aspects of executive power. The Court held that while the government has the
authority to engage in business activities, such actions must be subject to legislative control.
It stated that the executive can act within the scope of legislative competence but cannot
unilaterally impose restrictions that infringe upon fundamental rights. Importantly, the Court
pointed out that while the petitioners had the right to publish and sell books, they had no
inherent right to demand that their books be selected as official textbooks by the state.

This judgment set a significant precedent in constitutional law by affirming that the executive
cannot arbitrarily disrupt industries without legislative backing. It underscored the necessity
of parliamentary oversight in governmental economic interventions and reinforced the
principle that state actions must align with constitutional safeguards. The case remains a
cornerstone in discussions about the balance of power in governance, serving as a reminder
that even as the government expands its role in economic activities, it must do so within the
framework of legality and justice. In an era where executive overreach continues to be a
global concern, the lessons from Ram Jawaya v. State of Punjab remain profoundly relevant,
ensuring that democracy is upheld through the careful demarcation of powers between the
branches of government.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS:
 FACTS OF THE CASE:
 Issues Involved
 ARGUMENTS INVOLVED:
 Laws involved in the decision:
 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED
 Rationale of the Court
 PRECEDENT ANALYSIS
 Conclusion
 FACTS OF THE CASE:

For decades, from 1905 to 1950, the Punjab education system strictly regulated the approval
and use of textbooks in schools. Private publishers and authors had to submit their books to
the state’s education department at their own expense. The government would then review
these submissions and approve a selection, usually between 3 to 10 books per subject, which
school headmasters could choose from for classroom instruction.
However, after the partition of Punjab in the 1950s, the state restructured its education
policies, significantly altering the textbook approval process. The government took direct
control over the publication of books in subjects like farming history and social studies,
eliminating the role of private publishers. For all other subjects, instead of allowing multiple
approved books, the government selected a single textbook per subject. Additionally, it
imposed a 5% royalty on the sale price of approved books, payable to the state.
The biggest shift came with a government notification on August 9, 1952. This new rule
excluded publishers entirely from the approval process and accepted proposals only from
authors and other individuals. Authors whose books were selected were required to sign
agreements with the government, transferring full copyright ownership to the state. In return,
authors received a 5% royalty on book sales. This policy effectively stripped publishers of
their role and significantly reduced the autonomy of authors.
Feeling marginalized and financially threatened, six petitioners challenged the government’s
actions in court. They argued that the new policy was not only unfair but unconstitutional.
They contended that the restrictions imposed on them violated their fundamental right under
Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to practice any
profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business. Furthermore, they claimed that the
executive's actions were 'ultra vires'—meaning beyond its legal authority—since there was no
legislative backing for such a monopolistic move.

Issues Involved:
 What is the scope and extent of executive powers?

 Whether the Government of a State has the power under the Constitution of India to
carry on a trade or business without any legislative sanction?

 Whether the Government of Punjab, in creating a monopoly in the business of

printing and and publishing school textbooks, violated the Fundamental Rights of the
petitioners enshrined under Article 19(1)(g)?
 ARGUMENTS INVOLVED:
The petitioners raised three main points in their case. They argued that the executive branch
had no legal authority to create laws, as that was the sole responsibility of the legislature. By
establishing a monopoly in the publishing and textbook industry, the government had
exceeded its powers as an executive body.
They contended that the government had unfairly taken away their rights as publishers
without a proper legal process or compensation, violating Article 31 of the Constitution.
They also claimed that the government's actions infringed upon their right to conduct
business under Article 19(1)(g). Since there was no valid legal restriction under Article
19(6), they argued that the executive's decision was unconstitutional and beyond its authority.
The government defended its actions by arguing that it had the right to carry out these
activities as part of its duty to ensure social welfare. It maintained that this fell within the
scope of executive powers and did not interfere with legislative functions.
The government claimed that it had taken all necessary steps, including financial planning
and procedural compliance, before making the decision. Therefore, its actions were not
unconstitutional and did not violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners.

Laws involved in the decision:

Article 19(1)(g) states that every citizen has the right to practice any profession or engage in
any business, occupation, or trade. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to
reasonable restrictions imposed by the law. If the law deems certain activities to be unlawful,
then individuals cannot claim an unrestricted right to engage in them. These restrictions are
further elaborated in Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
Article 19(6) ensures that the rights granted under Article 19(1)(g) do not prevent the
government from enacting new laws or making changes to existing laws in the interest of
public welfare. This provision allows the government to introduce regulations that may limit
certain business activities if they serve a larger societal purpose, such as ensuring fair
competition, protecting consumers, or maintaining economic stability.
Article 31 was originally included in the Constitution to protect the property rights of
citizens, but it was later removed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978. Before its
removal, this article stated that no person could be deprived of their legally owned property
unless it was done in accordance with the law. Additionally, Article 31(2) specified that if a
person’s property was taken away by the government, they were entitled to compensation.
While the Constitution did not define a fixed amount for compensation, it was to be
determined according to the provisions of the law in place at the time.
Article 32 grants every individual the right to directly approach the Supreme Court if they
believe that their fundamental rights have been violated. This provision ensures that citizens
have a guaranteed mechanism to seek justice if they feel their legal rights are being denied.
To enforce these rights, the Supreme Court has the power to issue writs, which are special
legal orders directing action or restraint. The five types of writs provided under the Indian
Constitution include Habeas Corpus, which ensures protection against unlawful detention;
Mandamus, which directs a public official or authority to perform a duty; Certiorari, which
allows higher courts to review decisions of lower courts; Quo Warranto, which challenges the
legality of a person holding a public office; and Prohibition, which prevents lower courts
from exceeding their jurisdiction.
Article 154 deals with the executive authority of a state. It states that the executive power of
the state is vested in the Governor, who is the constitutional head of the state. The Governor
has the discretion to exercise these powers personally or delegate them to other officials in
accordance with the framework established by the Constitution. This article ensures that the
governance of a state is carried out in an orderly manner while maintaining the constitutional
separation of powers between different branches of the government.

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED:

The judgment in this case was delivered by Chief Justice Mukherjea, who examined the
scope and extent of executive powers. He emphasized that there is no rigid or exhaustive
definition of executive functions. In discussing Article 73 and Article 162, which govern the
distribution of executive powers between the Union and State governments, he explained that
Article 73 grants the Union executive power over matters within Parliament’s legislative
domain and those deriving from treaties or agreements. Additionally, in matters listed in the
Concurrent List, states have the authority to exercise executive power unless Parliament
extends the Union's power over them. Similarly, Article 162 vests executive power in the
state government for matters listed in List II of the Seventh Schedule and extends to the
Concurrent List, subject to parliamentary legislation. The court clarified that these provisions
do not explicitly define the functions of the executive but establish the extent of its authority,
refuting the petitioners' arguments.
The judgment further analyzed Article 154, concluding that executive power is not strictly
limited to implementing existing laws. The Indian Constitution follows the doctrine of
separation of powers, distinguishing between legislative, judicial, and executive functions.
However, this separation is not absolute, as the Constitution allows some overlap among
these functions. The executive is primarily responsible for implementing laws but may also
exercise delegated legislative or judicial powers when authorized. Modeled after the British
parliamentary system, the Indian Constitution vests Union executive power in the President
under Article 53(1), but under Article 75, the President functions as a constitutional head,
while real executive authority rests with the Council of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister.
At the state level, the Governor holds executive authority, but governance is effectively
carried out by the Council of Ministers.
Regarding the government’s involvement in business and trade, the court noted that in a
modern welfare state, the executive is expected to engage in activities that promote social and
economic well-being. The executive is responsible for policy-making, legislative initiatives,
law enforcement, and general supervision of the state. Citing the Allahabad High Court’s
ruling in Motilal v. Government of State of Uttar Pradesh1, the court reaffirmed that executive
power encompasses all actions necessary to achieve the objectives of the Constitution. The
state has the right to own property and conduct business like any private citizen, provided it
does not infringe upon others' rights or violate the law. The judgment concluded that an
action falls within the state's executive authority if it is not assigned to another body under
the Constitution, does not conflict with any legal provision, and does not harm public rights.
The court emphasized that the power to enter contracts is explicitly granted to the
government under Article 298, meaning the government does not require additional authority
to engage in business. It can lawfully enter agreements with authors and other stakeholders.
The Indian Constitution, being a written document, ensures that even the legislature cannot
override fundamental rights. Thus, even if a law contradicts fundamental rights, it can be
declared invalid. However, if an executive action is unlawful but does not violate
fundamental rights, the petitioners cannot seek relief under Article 32 but may explore other
legal remedies.
In this case, the court ruled that the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) had
not been violated. The petitioners had no inherent right to have their books selected as school
textbooks indefinitely. Since government-funded schools are primarily run and recognized by
the government, it has full authority to decide which books should be used. The court
compared this to a trader who may benefit from a specific market but loses business when
customers choose a competitor. This does not constitute a violation of fundamental rights, as
the petitioners retained the ability to print and sell books.
Regarding the petitioners' demand for compensation, the court ruled that merely having a
chance or expectation of attracting certain customers does not amount to a property right or
an interest in a business under Article 31(2). Consequently, there was no basis for claiming
compensation. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the government's actions were
lawful and did not infringe upon the petitioners' constitutional rights.

Rationale of the Court:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition filed by a group of publishers who challenged the
Punjab government’s policy of nationalizing school textbook publishing. The petitioners, who
were in the business of printing, publishing, and selling textbooks, argued that the
government’s decision to take control of textbook production had unfairly removed them
from the market. They claimed that this violated their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)
(g) (right to practice any profession or business) and Article 31 (protection from deprivation
of property without compensation).
However, the court rejected these arguments and ruled in favor of the government, stating
that the publishers had no fundamental right to have their books selected as school
textbooks. The court’s decision was based on the following key points:
1. The Government Has the Authority to Regulate School Textbooks

1
Motilal v. Government of State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1951 All. 257 (India).
Education is an essential function of the state, and the government has full control over the
curriculum and textbooks used in recognized schools. Previously, the government
followed an "alternative system," where publishers could submit books for approval, and
schools could choose from a list of approved textbooks. However, in 1950, the government
decided to change this system by selecting only one book per subject instead of providing
multiple options.
By 1952, the policy was further modified so that only authors (not publishers) could submit
books for approval. If a book was selected, the government acquired its copyright and took
over the responsibility of printing and selling it. This effectively removed private publishers
from the school textbook market.
2. The Publishers Had No Legal Right to Government Approval
The publishers argued that removing their books from the list of approved textbooks
amounted to a violation of their right to trade. However, the court clarified that there was
no fundamental right to have their books selected as school textbooks.
The court explained that a business may lose customers for many reasons, but that does not
mean the business has a legal right to those customers. In this case, the publishers were not
being stopped from printing or selling books—they were simply no longer being chosen by
the government as official textbook suppliers. This, according to the court, was not a
violation of fundamental rights but merely a change in government policy.
3. The Government Did Not Need a Law to Implement This Policy
Another argument made by the publishers was that the government could not enter the
business of publishing textbooks without first passing a law through the legislature.
They claimed that the government’s actions were unconstitutional because executive
decisions cannot replace legislation.
The court rejected this argument, stating that the executive branch of the government has
the authority to engage in business activities without the need for specific legislation.
Article 162 of the Constitution gives state governments the power to take executive actions in
areas where they are allowed to make laws. Since education falls under the state's
jurisdiction, the Punjab government had the authority to regulate textbooks and even take
over their production.
4. The Publishers Were Not Deprived of Property Unlawfully
The publishers also claimed that the government’s policy amounted to taking away their
business without compensation, which they argued violated Article 31 of the Constitution.
However, the court clarified that the government had not taken away their property or
business—it had simply changed the way textbooks were selected and sold.
The court explained that a private business does not have a right to expect government
contracts or approval indefinitely. The publishers were still free to publish books, but they
could no longer expect the government to prescribe their books for school use.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled that the government’s actions did not violate any fundamental
rights of the publishers. The policy change was within the government’s authority, and the
publishers were not entitled to special protection just because they had previously benefited
from government textbook approvals.

PRECEDENT ANALYSIS:
While dealing with the nature and extent of executive power, the court relied on two
Australian cases: The Commonwealth and the Central Wool Committee v. The Colonial
Combing, Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. (1922) 2and Attorney-General for Victoria v. The
Commonwealth (1935)3. The Australian Constitution has clearly defined the limits of
executive power, restricting it to maintaining the laws of the Constitution and ensuring the
welfare of the Commonwealth. These cases highlighted that Australia follows a strict
separation of powers, where the executive cannot act beyond what is explicitly stated in the
Constitution.
A similar issue was raised in Motilal v. The Government of Uttar Pradesh, where the question
was whether a state government could run a bus service without specific legislative approval.
The court ruled that executive power is not limited to merely executing laws but also includes
express, implied, incidental, and ancillary powers. Therefore, the act of running a transport
service was not beyond the state government’s authority. Unlike the Australian Constitution,
which strictly defines executive power, the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention
the scope of executive functions. As a result, the restrictions placed on the Australian
executive cannot be applied to India’s executive. Similarly, unless expressly limited by
law, the Indian executive is not subject to legislative constraints in the same way as in
Australia.
The Indian Constitution ensures a separation of powers between the three organs of
government—executive, legislature, and judiciary—to maintain a smooth system of
governance. However, due to the complex nature of governmental functions, some overlap
between these powers is inevitable. The court concluded that India does not follow a rigid
separation of powers. The executive has the authority to undertake legislative functions
through subordinate legislation, provided it does not violate constitutional principles or
contradict any provisions under Article 154 of the Constitution.

Conclusion
In this case, the Supreme Court reinforced the principle of responsible government, further
strengthening India’s parliamentary system. Chief Justice Mukherjea, delivering the court’s
opinion, highlighted that India follows the British model of a parliamentary executive,
where the President serves as a formal head, while actual executive authority rests with the
Council of Ministers. The Court extensively analyzed the scope of executive power and
2
Commonwealth & Cent. Wool Comm. v. Colonial Combing, Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd., (1922) 31 C.L.R. 421
(Austl.).
3
Att'y-Gen. for Victoria v. Commonwealth, (1935) 52 C.L.R. 533 (Austl.).
rejected the petitioners' argument that the executive could not engage in trade or business
without legislative approval.
India’s parliamentary system is based on close coordination between the executive and the
legislature, and unlike some other jurisdictions, the country does not follow a strict
separation of powers. While the Constitution does define the roles of different branches of
government, ensuring that no organ oversteps its fundamental functions, a rigid separation
does not exist. Instead, the doctrine of separation of powers in India functions as a system
of parallel yet interdependent authorities, with each branch maintaining a system of
checks and balances. Consequently, the executive can issue administrative directions and
take necessary actions in areas where legislation has not yet been enacted.
The Court ruled that since the Appropriation Act had sanctioned the required funds for
publishing textbooks, no additional legislation was needed. The government was well within
its rights to enter into contracts with authors and other entities to carry out this function.
Moreover, the publishing business remained open to private publishers, meaning no
individual rights were violated. Therefore, the government’s decision to publish textbooks
under its executive powers was deemed valid, as long as it did not infringe on anyone’s
rights.