AI Overview...
- Reasonableness of Restrictions - The Supreme Court in Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1951 AIR 118) established that restrictions on fundamental rights must be reasonable, meaning they should not be arbitrary or excessive beyond what is necessary for public interest Dr. Nidhi Goyal VS Faculty of Medical Sciences University of Delhi - Delhi, Grandhi Mangaraju, Manager, Brothers Shop and Branches, Rajam VS Assistant Labour Inspector, Srikakulam - Andhra Pradesh, Shambu Nath And Sons, Ltd. VS State Of Punjab - Punjab and Haryana.
- Test for Validity - The case laid down the test for assessing restrictions' validity, emphasizing that limitations should be proportionate and not oppressive, aligning with the principles of Article 19(6) of the Indian Constitution Dr. Nidhi Goyal VS Faculty of Medical Sciences University of Delhi - Delhi, Gupta Medical Store, Kota VS Union of India - Rajasthan.
- State Power and Rule-Making Authority - The judgment clarified the scope of state authority to make rules under statutes like the Motor Vehicles Act and other legislation, confirming that such rules must also adhere to reasonableness standards K. G. JAGANNATH VS STATE OF MYSORE - Karnataka, SANKALP INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION VS STATE OF U. P. - Allahabad.
- Impact on Legislation and Administrative Actions - The decision has been cited in subsequent cases to scrutinize laws and regulations, including bans on manufacturing or transportation, ensuring they are not arbitrary or excessive STATE GOVERNMENT, MADHYA PRADESH VS AMRITLAL AMANLAL - Nagpur, VINO CHEMICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS VS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Nagpur.
- Broader Judicial Principles - The ruling reinforces the doctrine that restrictions on rights, whether in the context of trade, movement, or other freedoms, must serve a public purpose and be proportionate, aligning with the Directive Principles of State Policy Gupta Medical Store, Kota VS Union of India - Rajasthan, Md. Aslam Chouhan VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh.
Analysis and Conclusion:
The Chintaman Rao case remains a foundational precedent in Indian constitutional law, establishing that restrictions on fundamental rights must be reasonable and not arbitrary. It emphasizes judicial scrutiny of government regulations to ensure they are proportionate and serve public interest, shaping the legal framework for assessing the validity of restrictive laws and policies. This case continues to influence the interpretation of state powers and individual rights within the constitutional scheme.
Search Results for "Chintaman Rao State of Madhya Pradesh 1951"
2015 0 Supreme(Del) 448 • India - Delhi
G.ROHINI, RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 2 SCR 348, Chintaman Rao Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1951 SC 118, Mohd. Hanif Quareshi Vs. ... State of Karnataka AIR 1992 SC 1858, J.P. Unni Krishnan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1993 SC 2178, E.P. Royappa Vs. ... State of Maharashtra and Amlan Jyoti Borooah Vs. State of Assam (2009) 3 SCC 227, Madan Lal Vs. ... State of Tamil ....
1959 0 Supreme(AP) 68 • India - Andhra Pradesh
MOHAMMED AHMED ANSARI
The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118, to determine the reasonableness of the restriction. ... Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Chintaman Rao v. ... The test was first stated in Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118. ... State of Uttar Pradesh, (1958) 1 Lab LJ 734. The....
1952 0 Supreme(Nagpur) 118 • India - Nagpur
HEMEON, CHOUDHURI
The appeal filed by the State Government was allowed. ... In Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1951 AIR(SC) 118(A), the validity Of the Central Provinces and Berar Regulation of Manufacture of Bidis (Agricultural Purposes) Act (64 of 1948) was considered. ... The learned Counsel for the Respondent in support of his contentions cited - ' Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya P....
1971 0 Supreme(Kar) 138 • India - Karnataka
GOVINDA BHAT, JAGANNATHA SHETTY
The impugned rule falls within the rule-making authority of the State Government. ... Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - S. 70: Confers on a State Government the power to make rules regarding the construction ... Finding of the Court: The court examines the rule-making authority of the State Government ... Vide State of Madras v. V. G. Row, AIR. 1952 SC. 196. In Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR. 1951 SC. 118.....
1958 0 Supreme(P&H) 38 • India - Punjab and Haryana
BISHAN NARAIN
As has been held by this Court in Chintaman Rao v. ... State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118, the phrase reasonable restriction connotes that the limitation imposed upon a person in enjoyment of a right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature beyond what is required in the interest of the public. ... State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 224, are - ... " * * * but the mischief arises when the power conferred on such officers in an arbitra....
2016 0 Supreme(All) 1640 • India - Allahabad
SUNEET KUMAR
to 64] ... (D) Admission—Students—By institution against policy of State ... institution had no right to admit students of their choice by adopting a mechanism of their own—Selecting students outside policy of State ... State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118). ... (Chintaman Rao v. ... rules made by the State Government under any Uttar Pradesh Act. ... ... (5-A) Every order made under Clause (a) of Sub-section (....
2011 7 Supreme 146 • India - Supreme Court
H.L.GOKHALE, R.V.RAVEENDRAN
education conducted in its school and intermediate college, affiliated to the Board of High School and Intermediate Education of Uttar Pradesh ... education conducted in its school and intermediate college, affiliated to the Board of High School and Intermediate Education of Uttar Pradesh ... education conducted in its school and intermediate college, affiliated to the Board of High School and Intermediate Education of Uttar Pradesh ... In the case of Chintaman Rao v. ... State of #HL_....
1996 0 Supreme(Raj) 543 • India - Rajasthan
V.K.SINGHAL
Reliance has been placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Chintaman Rao vs. ... State of Madya Pradesh (1), wherein it was observed that the phrase `reasonable restriction in Article 19(6) connotes that the land taken imposed on a person in enjoyment of a right should not be arbitrary or of excessive nature beyond what is required in the interests of the public. ... AIR 1951 SC 118 and AIR 1954 SCC 244 Foll. ... bear in mind the ... Directive Principle of State#HL....
2013 0 Supreme(Chh) 353 • India - Chhattisgarh
YATINDRA SINGH, MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
to any place within the State or outside the State, for the purpose of its slaughter in contravention of provisions of this Act ... Article 48 of this part is titled as Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry - It provides that the State shall attempt ... impose unreasonable restrictions to carry on business of transportation or not Constitution is titled as Directive Principles of State ... The counsel for the Petitioners placed reliance on Chintaman Rao & Another vs. #HL_STA....
1955 0 Supreme(Nagpur) 64 • India - Nagpur
HIDAYATULLAH, R.KAUSHALENDRA RAO
The court further held that the prohibition on the manufacture of certain tinctures was also illegal, as the State Government did ... challenged the legality of the seizure of its rectified spirit and the prohibition on the manufacture of certain tinctures by the State ... The prohibition on the manufacture of certain tinctures was illegal because the State Government did not have the power to prohibit ... State of U.P, 1954 AIR(SC) 224 at p. 227 (E). As has been, held by this Court in Chintaman #HL_STA....
Filter by Legal Phrase
