Sections 3(d) and 8 ultra vires Articles 21 and 31 of Constitution.

Kapur, J.

These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution raise the question of the constitutionality of the Drug and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act (Act XXI of 1954) hereinafter referred to as the Act. As the petitions raise a common question of law they may conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.

The allegation of the petitioners was that various actions had been taken against them by the respondents which violated their fundamental rights under Article 19

(1)(a) and 19(1)(f) and (g). They also challenged the Act because it contravened the provisions of Article 14 and Articles 21 and 31.

The Act passed on April 30, 1954, came into force on April, 1, 1955, along with the Rules made there under. As provided in its Preamble it was

“An Act to control the advertisement of drugs in certain cases, to prohibit the advertisement for certain purposes of remedies alleged to possess magic qualities and to provide for matters connected therewith”.

The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 81 of 1959, the Hamdard Dawakhana (wakf) and another, alleged that soon after the Act came into force they experienced difficulty in the matter of publicity for their products and various objections were raised by the authorities in regard to their advertisements. On December 4, 1958, the Drugs Controller, Delhi, intimated to the petitioners that the provisions of Section 3 of the Act had been contravened by them and called upon them to recall their products sent to Bombay and other States. As a result of this, correspondence ensued between the petitioners and the authorities. On December 4, 1958, the Drugs Controller, Delhi State, stopped the sale of forty of their products set out in the petition. Subsequently objection was taken by the Drugs Controller to the advertisement in regard to other drugs. Similarly objections were taken by ,the Drugs Controllers of other States to various advertisements in regard to medicines and drugs prepared by the petitioners. They submitted that the various advertisements which had been objected to were prepared in accordance with the Unani system and the drugs bore Unani nomenclature which had been recognised in the whole world for several centuries past. The Act is assailed on the ground of discrimination under Article 14 , excessive delegation and infringement of the right of free speech under Article 19(1)( a) and their right to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)( f) and (g). Objection is also taken under Articles 21 and 31 The petitioners therefore prayed for a declaration that the Act and the Rules made thereunder were ultra vires and void as violative of Part III of the Constitution and for the issuing of a writ of mandamus and prohibition and for quashing the proceedings and the notices issued by the various authorities-the respondents.

In their counter-affidavit the respondents submitted that the method and manner of advertisement of drugs by the petitioners and others clearly indicated the necessity of having an Act like the impugned Act and its rigorous enforcement. The allegations in regard to discrimination and impairment of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)()( f) and (g) and any infringement of Articles 21 and 31 were denied and it was stated:

“The restriction is about the advertisement to the people in general. I say that the main object and purpose of the Act is to prevent people from self-medicating with regard to various serious diseases. Self-medication in respect of diseases of serious nature mentioned in the Act and the Rules has a deleterious effect on the health of the community and is likely to affect the well-being of the people. Having thus found that some medicines have tendency to induce people to resort to self-medication by reason of elated advertisements, it was thought necessary in the interest of public health that the puffing up of the advertisements is put to a complete check and that the manufacturers are compelled to route their products thr