Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955)

This case is about how far the executive government can go without a specific law passed by the legislature, and whether such executive action can cut into citizens’ right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g).

A group of private publishers from Punjab were printing and selling school textbooks. The Punjab Government later started a textbook policy under which the Government itself controlled which books would be written, printed and supplied to schools. Because of this, the publishers were almost pushed out of the school textbook market and they approached the Supreme Court.

They argued that the Government, only by issuing executive orders, could not create a kind of monopoly and destroy their business freedom. The Supreme Court held that the executive is fully bound by the Constitution, but in this case the publishers’ fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) was not violated, because they never had a right to demand that the Government must choose their books as official textbooks.

• Can the executive Government, without a specific statute, create a practical monopoly in the field of school textbooks?
• Does the Punjab textbook policy amount to an unreasonable restriction on the publishers’ fundamental right to carry on trade or business under Article 19(1)(g)?
• What is the extent of executive power in India, especially in relation to the legislative power of the State?
• Is every illegal executive act automatically a violation of fundamental rights so that a petition under Article 32 will lie?

• Article 19(1)(g): Guarantees to all citizens the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
• Article 19(6): Allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right by law, including creating State monopolies in certain areas.
• Articles 73 and 162: Describe the extent of executive power of the Union and the States. Executive power extends to matters on which the legislature can make laws, subject to the Constitution and existing statutes.
• Article 32: Constitutional remedy to move the Supreme Court directly when a fundamental right is violated.

The Court also relied on the basic idea that in a written Constitution like India’s, neither the legislature nor the executive can override fundamental rights. The executive must act within the four corners of the Constitution and valid laws.

1. Extent of executive power: Executive power normally extends to all matters on which the legislature can make laws. The executive can act, so long as there is no law prohibiting such action and the Constitution is not violated.
2. No strict separation of powers: The Indian Constitution does not enforce a rigid separation between the legislature and the executive. However, both are controlled by constitutional limits and fundamental rights.
3. Right to trade vs. right to be selected: Article 19(1)(g) gives citizens the freedom to carry on trade or business. It does not give a guarantee that the State must buy their goods or select their products for government use.
4. Article 32 and illegality: An executive act may be wrongful or unwise, but Article 32 is available only if it also violates a fundamental right. Mere illegality is not enough for a constitutional remedy under Article 32.

For law students, Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur is a must-know case because it clearly explains how executive power works in India and how it is limited by the Constitution.

• It shows that the executive can take many policy decisions, even without a specific statute, as long as it does not break any existing law or fundamental right.
• It clarifies that economic disadvantage caused by a government policy is not always a fundamental rights violation.
• It is frequently used in exams to explain the relationship between executive power, legislative power and Article 19(1)(g).
• It is also important when discussing separation of powers and checks and balances in the Indian constitutional system.

Use this simple memory tool to lock the case in your head during exams.

3-Step Exam Hook

1. Step 1 – Start with the scene: “In Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur, private publishers challenged Punjab’s Government textbook policy…”
2. Step 2 – Drop the issue: “They argued that the executive cannot create a monopoly and destroy their trade freedom under Article 19(1)(g) without a supporting law.”
3. Step 3 – Finish with the ratio: “The Supreme Court held that executive power is wide but controlled by the Constitution, and the publishers had no fundamental right to demand that their books be used as official textbooks.”

Executive power

Power of the Government to run administration, make policies and take decisions, as different from making laws (legislature) or deciding cases (judiciary).

Monopoly

A situation where only one seller controls the whole market for a particular product or service.

Article 19(1)(g)

Fundamental right that lets a citizen carry on any trade, business, profession or occupation, subject to reasonable restrictions.

Article 32

Provision that allows a person to directly move the Supreme Court when a fundamental right is violated.

Reasonable restriction

A fair and balanced limit placed by law on a fundamental right, which the courts accept as justified in public interest.

Separation of powers

Constitutional idea that law-making, law-executing and law-interpreting functions should be placed in different organs so that power is not concentrated in one hand.

Use these cases to build a stronger understanding of executive power, reasonable restrictions and separation of powers in India.