1. Challenge to the constitutionality of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958, concerning mandatory export quotas for sugar factories and additional excise duty for non-compliance. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 100
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
6th May, 1959.
B.P. SINHA, S. JAFER IMAM, J.L. KAPUR, A.K. SARKAR, K. SUBBA RAO AND M. HIDAYATULLAH JJ.
1. The Lord Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd. and another (In Petn. No. 9 of 59) and 2. Shiva Prasad Banarsi Das Sugar Mills and another (In Petn. No. 14 of 59) Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India and another. Respondents.
Petns. Nos. 9 and 14 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate, (Mr. G. C. Mathur, Advocate, with him), for the Petitioners (in Petn. No. 9 of 1959); Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India and Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. H. Dhebar, Advocate, with them), for Respondent No. 1 (in both the Petitions); Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India and Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (Mr. B. P. Maheshwari, Advocate, with them, for Respondent No. 2 (in Petition No. 9 of 1959); Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Senior Advocate, (Mr. G. C. Mathur, Advocate, with him), for petitioners (in Petition No. 14 of 1959); Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate (Mr. B. P. Maheshwari, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 2 (in Petition No.14 of 1959).
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.P.MAHESHVARI, B.SEN, G.C.MATHUR, M.C.SETALVAD, N.C.CHATTERJI, R.H.Dhebar
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, B.P.MAHESHVARI, B.SEN, G.C.MATHUR, M.C.SETALVAD, N.C.CHATTERJI, R.H.Dhebar
Compulsory export quotas to earn foreign exchange are reasonable restrictions on the right to trade if they serve a legitimate national interest and are not arbitrary, regardless of whether the validity depends on complementary measures under unconnected statutes.
Headnote:(A) Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 - Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1)(f), 19(1)(g), and 31 - Validity of legislation compelling export of sugar to earn foreign exchange - Classification of factories using a specific production process - Whether such restrictions are reasonable - Whether the validity of an Act can depend on a notification issued under an unconnected statute. (Paras 20-45)
(B) Article 14 - The selection of a specific industry or production process for an export programme to earn foreign exchange is a justifiable and reasonable classification if it is related to the object of the Act and the public interest. (Paras 21-22)
(C) Article 19(1)(g) and Article 31 - Restrictions on the right to carry on trade and the right to hold and dispose of property are reasonable if they serve a national interest, such as earning foreign exchange to finance development schemes, and the burden imposed is not excessive or arbitrary. (Paras 44-45)
(D) Test of Reasonableness - There is a divergence of opinion on whether the reasonableness of a restriction in one Act can be judged by reference to a notification issued under an unconnected statute. One view is that surrounding circumstances and contemporaneous legislation passed as part of a single legislative plan can be considered (Paras 25-28). An alternative view is that the validity of an Act cannot be made to depend on a transitory notification under an unconnected Act, as this would introduce uncertainty and place the statute in a fluid state (Paras 40-43).
Facts of the case:
Legislation was enacted to provide for the export of sugar in the public interest to earn foreign exchange. The government fixed export quotas for factories employing a specific production process, requiring owners to deliver sugar to a designated export agency. Failure to comply resulted in a penal additional excise duty. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Act, arguing it was discriminatory and imposed unreasonable restrictions on their fundamental rights by forcing them to export at a loss. The government contended that any such loss was offset by increasing the ex-factory price for internal sales under a separate commodity control law.
Findings of Court:
The majority held that the object of the Act was in the public interest and the classification of factories was reasonable. The restrictions on the freedom to trade and hold property were not arbitrary or excessive, as the export quota was a small fraction of total production and the goal of earning foreign exchange was critical for national industrialization.
Issues: Whether the Act is discriminatory under Article 14; whether the compulsory export quota constitutes an unreasonable restriction on fundamental rights under Article 19 and Article 31; and whether the reasonableness of a statute can be justified by an executive notification issued under a separate, unconnected law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that earning foreign exchange for national development is a valid public interest. A restriction is reasonable if it has a rational nexus with the object and is not arbitrary. Even if the export results in a loss, the restriction is reasonable if it serves a compelling national need and the burden is distributed and minimal. While the court differed on the admissibility of using unconnected notifications to prove reasonableness, the majority found the Act valid on its own merits.
Result: Petitions dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Act is discriminatory under Article 14 and imposes unreasonable restrictions on trade and property rights under Articles 19 and 31 by compelling sales at loss. (Para 20 , 23 , 52 , 55 )
3. The Act serves national interest by earning foreign exchange; the classification of sugar factories is reasonable; restrictions are proportionate and not arbitrary. (Para 21 , 22 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 44 , 45 )
4. Restrictions on fundamental rights are reasonable if they serve a legitimate public interest and maintain a proper balance between individual freedom and social control. (Para 25 , 44 , 45 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed with costs. (Para 39 , 46 , 80 )
6. Is the selection of only vacuum pan sugar factories for mandatory export discriminatory under Article 14?
No. The government is the best judge of which commodities can earn foreign exchange. Selecting sugar produced by the vacuum pan process is a reasonable classification related to the Act's objective of earning foreign exchange in the public interest. (Para 21 , 22 )
7. When is a restriction on the fundamental right to carry on trade considered reasonable?
A restriction is reasonable if it has a reasonable relation to the object the legislature seeks to achieve, serves the national interest, and does not go in excess of that object, striking a proper balance between freedom and social control. (Para 25 , 44 , 45 )
8. Can the validity of a statute be based on a notification issued under a separate, unconnected Act?
No. The validity of an Act cannot depend on a transitory notification under an unconnected Act, as this would place the statute in a fluid state and make its validity dependent on executive discretion. (Para 40 , 43 , 66 )
9. Does compelling a manufacturer to export at a loss constitute an unreasonable restriction on trade?
Not if the quota is small, serves a pressing national need such as earning foreign exchange, and the overall scheme is designed to minimize hardship or provide recoupment mechanisms. (Para 30 , 32 , 44 )
Judgement
M. HIDAYATULLAH J. : Writ Petition No. 9 of 1959 has been filed by the Lord Krishna Sugar Mills, Ltd., Saharanpur and Shri Sushil Kumar, a Director of the said Mills. It was heard along with Writ Petition No, 14 of 1959, which has been filed by Shiva Prasad Banarsidas Sugar Mills, Bijnor through Seth Munnalal and also by him in his own name. These Mills are hereinafter referred to as the L. K. S. Mills and S. P. B. Mills, respectively. The petitions raise the same contentions, but in Writ Petition No. 14 of 1959, there is one more circumstance, which will be mentioned later. The petitions are directed against the Union of India and the Indian Sugar Mills Association (Export Agency Division) Calcutta. The petitioners challenge inter alia the constitutionality of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 (30 of 1958), which shall hereafter be referred to as the Act. They question also the legality of certain orders passed by the second respondent purporting to be under the Act.
2. Before describing how this matter came before the Court, it is convenient to give the scheme of the Act and to set out some of its provisions. On 27-6-1958, the President promulgated the Sugar Export Promotion Ordinance, 1958, which was repealed by and re-enacted as the Act on 16-9-1958. The Ordinance was in the same terms as the Act, and it is not necessary to refer to the Ordinance separately, more so because by S. 14 of the Act which repealed the Ordinance, anything done or any action taken under the Ordinance is deemed to have been done or taken under the Act, and the Act itself is deemed to have commenced on 27-6-1958,
3. Both the Ordinance and the Act were passed to provide for the export of sugar in the public interest and for the levy and collection in certain circumstances of an additional duty of excise on sugar produced in India. To achieve this objective, the Act authorizes the Central Government (as did the Ordinance previously) to specify an export agency to perform the functions mentioned in the Act, and the Central Government by a notification issued the same day, specified the Indian Sugar Mills Association (Export Agency Division) Calcutta, as the export agency.
4. The Act next provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix the quantity of sugar to be exported during any period taking into the consideration
(a) the quantity of sugar available in the country;
(b) the quantity of sugar required for consumption in the country; and
(c) the necessity of exporting sugar with a view to earning foreign exchange in the public interest,
but, so as not to exceed 20 per cent, of the quantity to be produced in India in the season ending with the month of October falling within that year. The Central Government fixed 50,000 tons as the quantity to be exported up to 31-12-1958, later extended to 31-1-1959. This notification was also issued on 27-6-1958.
5. Section 5 of the Act enables the Central Government to apportion, by order in writing the quantity to be exported among owners" of factories, the word "factory" being confined to a factory where sugar is produced by the vacuum pan process. The term "owner" is defined to include transferees, and agents and managers under Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The apportionment of the quantity of sugar to be exported is to be in proportion to the quantity of sugar produced or likely to be produced by the owners during the season referred to earlier. On the communication of the order to an owner, the quantity so apportioned is deemed to be the export quota for the factory of that owner.
6. Section 6 then provides that on demand by the export agency, every owner shall deliver to it from time to time, sugar produced in his factory in such quantities (not exceeding in the aggregate his export quota fixed for the factory or group of factories, as the case may be), of such grade, in such manner, within such time and at such place, as may be specified by the
