{"id":223739,"date":"1961-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961"},"modified":"2019-03-03T11:22:21","modified_gmt":"2019-03-03T05:52:21","slug":"ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961","title":{"rendered":"Ramdhandas And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ramdhandas And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1559, \t\t 1962 SCR (1) 852<\/div>\n
Author: N R Ayyangar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAMDHANDAS AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF PUNJAB\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n10\/04\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nBENCH:\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1559\t\t  1962 SCR  (1) 852\n CITATOR INFO :\n APL\t    1962 SC 316\t (36)\n\n\nACT:\nShop Establishments--Enactment to Provide for regulation  of\nhours work--Constitutional validity--Forty eight hour week--\nOpening\t and closing hours--Reasonable\trestrictions--Punjab\nShops and Commercial, Establishments Act, 1958 (Punj.  15 of\n1958),\tSS. 4, 7, 9, 10--Constitution of India, Arts.  19(1)\n(g), 19(6).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nSection 7 of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments\nAct,  1958, provided that no person shall be employed  about\nthe  business of an establishment for more than forty  eight\nhours in any week and nine hours in any one day.  Under s. 9\nof the Act no establishment shall save otherwise provided by\nthe  Act,open  earlier than ten o'clock in  the\t morning  or\nclose  later  than  eight  o'clock  in\tthe  evening.\t The\npetitioners  challenged the constitutional validity  of\t the\naforesaid provisions of the Act on the ground that  having,,\nregard\tto  the\t nature\t of  their  business,  it  would  be\nimpossible  for them to carry it on in the manner  in  which\nthey  were  doing  unless the Act  permitted  them  to\twork\nwithout regard to the restrictions imposed by the limitation\nas to hours of work of employees under s. 7(1) or the  hours\nfor  the opening and closing of the establishments under  s.\n9, and that,\n853\nconsequently, these provisions imposed unreasonable restric-\ntions on their fundamental right to carry on their trade  or\nbusiness under Art. 19(1)(e) of the Constitution  of  India.\nThe petitioners' case was that their business was such\tthat\nthe  customers who supplied them with goods brought them  in\nvehicles which arrived at their godowns at all hours of\t the\nday  and night and that they received messages by  telephone\nand  telegram  similarly both during day and  night.   These\naccording to them rendered it necessary that their place  of\nbusiness  should  be kept open practically for\tall  the  24\nhours of the day.\nHeld,  that  ss.7 and 9 of the Punjab Shops  and  Commercial\nEstablishments\tAct, 1958  are intra vires the\tConstitution\nof India.\nThe test of constitutional validity is whether the  impugned\nprovisions  of\tthe  Act which were enacted  to\t afford\t the\nworker better conditions of work and more regulated hours so\nas  to\tavoid  physical\t overstrain  and  ensure  to  him  a\nreasonable amount of leisure in the interest of the  general\npublic, are unreasonable restrictions from the point of view\nof  the employer and go beyond what is reasonably needed  to\nprotect the worker. judged by this test, neither the 48-hour\nweek, nor the specification of the opening and closing hours\ncould  be said to have gone beyond what by modern  standards\nare necessary for ensuring the health and efficiency of\t the\nemployee.\nManohar\t Lal  v. The State of Punjab,<\/a> [1961] 2\tS.C.R.\t343,\nfollowed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 164 01 1958.
\nWrit Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for
\nthe enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
\nN. C. Chatterjee and Naunit Lal, for the petitioners.
\nN. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for the respondent.
\n1961.  April 10.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nAYYANGAR,   J.-The  constitutional  validity  of   the\t Ay.
\noperative  provisions  of the Punjab  Shops  and  Commercial
\nEstablishments\tAct, 1958 (Punjab Act 15 of 1958), which  we
\nshall  hereafter refer to as the Act, is challenged in\tthis
\nwrit  petition\tfiled  under Art. 32  of  the  Constitution,
\nseeking reliefs appropriate to such a challenge.
\nThere  are  two petitioners and the nature of  the  business
\ncarried on by, them, which is set out in the
\n854<\/span>
\npetition,  indicates that they have combined with a view  to
\nbring up before the Court the implications of the  enactment
\nwith  reference to different types of business which  trades
\nin  the\t Punjab\t might be’ carrying on and  which  would  be
\nimpeded\t or  restricted by the provisions of the  Act.\t The
\nfirst petitioner states that he has a shop at Mandi  Dabwali
\nin  Hissar  District  where he carries on  business  in\t the
\npurchase  and  sale  of\t grains,  etc.\tin  wholesale.\t The
\nrelevant averment in regard to the nature of his business is
\nthat  the  customers who supply him with  goods\t bring\tthem
\nloaded\tin carts drawn by camels or bullocks and that  these
\nvehicles  arrive at his godowns at all hours of the day\t and
\nnight.\tHe also states that for the purpose of the purchases
\nor sales effected by him, he receives messages by  telephone
\nand  telegram  both during the day and\tthe  night.   These,
\naccording  to him, render necessary, if he has to  carry  on
\nbusiness  as he has been doing all along, that his place  of
\nbusiness  should be kept open practically the whole  of\t the
\nday  and  night,  i.e., for all the 24\thours.\t The  second
\npetitioner  states that he is carrying on a retail  business
\non  a  small  scale, and that he  employs  no  outsider\t but
\nattends\t to  all  the work in the  shop\t himself,  with\t the
\nassistance, if necessary, of the members of his family.\t  In
\nthis  case  also it is stated that the goods  purchased\t are
\nbrought\t to  him  at  all hours of the\tday  and  night\t and
\nsimilarly  he  has  to receive messages\t during\t the  entire
\nperiod.\t  It  is  in this background  that  the\t petitioners
\ndesire\tthat the Court should view the restrictions  imposed
\nupon  them  by\tthose  provisions  of  the  Act\t which\t are
\nchallenged in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
We  shall now proceed to set out  he impugned provisions  of
\nthe  Act with a view to determine whether for all or any  of
\nthe  reasons  set out in the petition,any of them  could  be
\nsaid to constitute an unreasonable restriction on the  right
\nto  carry on trade or business so as not to be protected  by
\nArt. 19(6) of the Constitution which is the gravamen of\t the
\ncomplaint formulated in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
The  Act received the assent of the President on  April\t 25,
\n1958, and was published in the Punjab
\n855<\/span>
\nGazette on May 1, 1958.\t According to the preamble, it is an
\nAct to provide for the regulation of conditions\t of work and
\nemployment in shops and commercial establishments.  The\t Act
\nrepealed  and  re-enacted, with\t modifications,\t the  Punjab
\nTrade Employees Act, 1940, to which enactment also it  would
\nbe necessary to advert in its proper place.  Section 1(3) of
\nthe Act provides that the Act shall come into force on\tsuch
\ndate  as  Government may, by notification  appoint  in\tthis
\nbehalf\tand by a notification under this provision  the\t Act
\nwas directed to come into force from June 1, 1958.  The Act,
\nhowever,, did not of its own force apply to the entirety  of
\nthe Punjab State, for s. 1(4) enacted:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1(4).   It shall apply in the first  instance
\n\t      to  the areas specified in the  Schedule,\t but
\n\t      Government may by notification direct that  it
\n\t      shall  also  apply to such other area  and  on
\n\t      such   date  as  may  be\tspecified   in\t the
\n\t      notification.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Mandi Dabwali where the petitioners carry on business is one
\nof the local areas in the district of Hissar set out in\t the
\nSchedule  annexed.   We\t might\there  note  that  the\tmain
\ngrievance of the petitioners appears to, be that it has\t not
\nbeen brought into force in neighbouring local areas and that
\nthis   disparity  in  the  regulations\tis  acting  to\t the
\ndisadvantage of people carrying on business in the areas set
\nout  in the Schedule.  This, however, cannot obviously be  a
\nground\tof  constitutional  grievance  and  learned  Counsel
\ntherefore very properly did not rely on it except merely  to
\ndraw our attention to this fact.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 2(iv)\tdefines a ‘a  commercial  establishment’  to
\nwhich  the Act applies as meaning “any premises wherein\t any
\nbusiness,  trade  or profession is carried on  for  profit”,
\nomitting the unnecessary words.\t Section 2(v) defines  ‘day’
\nas  meaning  “the period of twenty-four hours  beginning  at
\nmidnight”, again omitting what is immaterial.  The operative
\nprovisions  of the Act which were attacked in  the  petition
\nare ss. 7 and 9 and it would be convenient to set out  their
\nmaterial terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t “7. Hours of employment.–(1) Subject to
\n\t\t      the
\n856<\/span>
\nprovisions  of this Act, no person shall be  employed  about
\nthe  business of an establishment for more than\t forty-eight
\nhours in any one week, and nine
\nhours in any one day.\n<\/p>\n
(2)………………………….
\n(3)………………………….
\n(4)………………………….
\n(5)………………………….\n<\/p>\n
9. Opening and closing hours.– No establishment shall, save
\nas  otherwise  provided by this Act, open earlier  than\t ten
\no’clock in the morning or close later than eight o’clock  in
\nthe evening;\n<\/p>\n
Provided  that\tany customer who was  in  the  establishment
\nbefore\tthe closing hour may be served during the period  of
\nfifteen minutes immediately following such hour;
\nProvided further that the State Government may, by order and
\nfor   reasons\tto  be\trecorded  in   writing,\t  allow\t  an
\nestablishment attached to a factory to open at eight o’clock
\nin the morning and close at six o’clock in the evening.
\nProvided   further  that  the  State  Government   may,\t  by
\nnotification in the official Gazette, fix such other opening
\nand  closing hours in respect of any establishment or  class
\nof  establishments, for such period and on such\t conditions,
\nas may be specified in such notification.”
\nFor the sake of completeness and to understand the scheme of
\nthe  enactment\twe would set out the terms of  s.  10  also,
\nwhich reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “10.    Close  day.-(1)  Save   as   otherwise
\n\t      provided\tby  this  Act,\tevery  establishment
\n\t      shall remain close on every Sunday:
\n\t      Provided that, in the case of an establishment
\n\t      attached\tto  a  factory,\t the  employer\t may
\n\t      substitute the close day of such establishment
\n\t      so  as to correspond to the substituted  close
\n\t      day  of  the factory in the  same\t manner\t and
\n\t      subject  to  the same conditions as  are\tlaid
\n\t      down  in\tthis behalf in\tthe  Factories\tAct,
\n\t\t\t    1948.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2) (i) The employer of an establishment shall
\n\t      in   the\tprescribed  form  intimate  to\t the
\n\t      prescribed
\n857<\/span>
\n\t      authority the working hours and the period  of
\n\t      interval\t of  the  employed  persons   within
\n\t      fifteen  days of the date of  registration  of
\n\t      the establishment.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)The  employer\t of  an\t establishment\t may
\n\t      change,  the working hours and the  period  of
\n\t      interval\tonce  in a quarter of  the  year  by
\n\t      giving  intimation in the\t prescribed form  to
\n\t      the prescribed authority at least fifteen days
\n\t      before the change is to take place.
\n\t      (3)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained\t  in
\n\t      subsection    (1),   the\t employer   of\t  an
\n\t      establishment  may open his  establishment  on
\n\t      the close day if–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)  such\t day  happens to  coincide  with.  a
\n\t      festival; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b) employees required to work on that day are
\n\t      paid remuneration at double the rate of  their
\n\t      normal wages calculated by the hour”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\turged  by Mr.  Chatterji–learned  Counsel  for\t the
\npetitioners-that   having  regard  to  the  nature  of\t the
\npetitioners’  business,\t whose\tfeatures  we  have  set\t out
\nearlier,  it would be impossible for them to carry it on  in
\nthe  manner in which they have been doing up to now,  unless
\nthe  Act  permitted  the first petitioner  to  work  without
\nregard\tto the restrictions imposed by-the limitation as  to
\nhours  of work of employees imposed by s. 7(1) of  the\tAct,
\nand both the petitioners without regard to the hours for the
\nopening and closing of the “establishments” under s. 9.
\nBefore\tentering  on  a\t discussion  of\t the  constitutional
\npropriety of the restrictions imposed we may point out\tthat
\nthe  provisions of the Act contemplate\tthat  establishments
\nmight\tfall  under  three  categories:.-(1)  where  it\t  is
\nnecessary  in the public interest, and having regard to\t the
\nservice which they render to the community, that the  normal
\nhours  of working should not be subject to the\trestrictions
\nimposed by ss. 9 or 10, (2) those in which there is no\tneed
\nfor  complete freedom from these restrictions, but in  which
\nan adjustment merely as regards the hours set out in s. 9 is
\nsufficient,  (3) those in which neither the requirements  of
\nthe trade nor, of course, the interest of the general public
\n858<\/span>
\nwould suffer if the establishment adjusted its operations in
\nconformity with the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The first head is dealt with by s. 4 of the Act which reads:
\n“4.  Provisions\t of  sections 9 and  10\t not  applicable  to
\ncertain\t establishments.-Nothing in sections 9 and 10  shall
\napply to-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  clubs, hotels, boarding houses, stalls and\t refreshment
\nrooms at the railway stations;\n<\/p>\n
(b) shops of barbers and hair-dressers;\n<\/p>\n
(c) shops dealing mainly in meat, fish, poultry,
\neggs,  dairy  produce (except ghee),  bread,  confectionery,
\nsweets,\t chocolates,  ice, ice-cream,  cooked  food,  fruit,
\nflowers, vegetables or green fodder;\n<\/p>\n
(d) shops dealing mainly in medicines or medical or surgical
\nrequisites   or\t appliances  and  establishments   for\t the
\ntreatment or care of the sick, infirm, destitute or mentally
\nunfit;\n<\/p>\n
(e) shops dealing in articles required for funerals, burials
\nor cremations;\n<\/p>\n
(f)   shops  dealing  in  pans\t(betel\tleaves),  biris\t  or
\ncigarettes,  or\t liquid refreshments sold  retail  for\tcon-
\nsumption on the premises;\n<\/p>\n
(g) shops dealing in newspapers or periodicals, editing\t and
\ndespatching sections of the newspaper offices and offices of
\nthe news agencies;\n<\/p>\n
(h)   cinemas,\t theatres  and\tother\tplaces\t of   public
\nentertainment;\n<\/p>\n
(i)  establishments  for  the  retail  sale  of\t petrol\t and
\npetroleum products used for transport;\n<\/p>\n
(j) shops in regimental institutes, garrison shops and troop
\ncanteens in cantonments;\n<\/p>\n
(k)  tanneries;\n<\/p>\n
(1)  retail  trade carried on at an exhibition or  show,  if
\nsuch  retail  trade is subsidiary or ancillary only  to\t the
\nmain purpose of the exhibition or show;\n<\/p>\n
(m) oil mills not registered under the Factories Act, 1948;\n<\/p>\n
(n)  brick and lime kilns;\n<\/p>\n
(o) commercial establishments engaged in the manufacture  of
\nbronze and brass utensils so far as
\n859<\/span>
\n\t      it  is confined to the process of\t melting  in
\n\t      furnaces; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (p) saltpetre refineries.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      Similarly\t  by  notification  of\t the   State
\n\t      Government  State\t dated\tJune  1,  1958,\t the
\n\t\t\t    following\tclasses\t of   establishments   wer
\ne
\n\t      exempted from the provisions of SS. 9 and 10:
\n\t      “(1) establishments dealing in the retail sale
\n\t      of  Phullian, Murmura, sugar-coated grams\t and
\n\t      Reoris;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (2) commercial colleges of shorthand and type-
\n\t      writing.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (vide Punjab Government notification No. 6567.
\n\t      S-Lab. 58\/1737-RA, dated June 1, 1958.)
\n\t      (3)all booking offices of the Transport  (vide
\n\t      Punjab Government notification No. 6147\/ 5815-
\n\t      C-Lab-58\/1741-RA, dated June 1, 1958).”
\n(2)The\tsecond\tcategory of cases are those covered  by\t the
\nsecond\tand  third provisos to S. 9. Action has\t been  taken
\nunder the third proviso to S. 9, by a notification which was
\nissued\tat  the same time as when the Act was  brought\tinto
\nforce which runs in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The following categories of establishments in
\n\t      the  State  of Punjab shall not  open  earlier
\n\t      than  eight  o’clock in the morning  or  close
\n\t      later  than six o’clock in the evening  during
\n\t      the period from 1st May to
\n\t      thirty-first August every year:-
\n\t      (1)establishments\t   dealing    in     timber,
\n\t      manufacture  of  furniture, tents,  supply  of
\n\t      furniture\t or tents on hire, cycles  or  their
\n\t      repairs  or painting or dyeing;
\n\t       (2)establishments,   other   than   tailoring
\n\t      establishments,  which include ‘workshops’  or
\n\t      other   establishments  where   articles\t are
\n\t      produced, adapted or manufactured, with a view
\n\t      to their use, transport or sale; and
\n\t       (3)  establishments dealing  in\tagricultural
\n\t      produce  brought for sale\t by  producers.(vide
\n\t      Notification   No.  6567.\t   S-Lab-58\/1735-RA,
\n\t      dated June 1, 1958).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(3)  Those  outside  S.\t 4 and\twhich  are  not\t covered  by
\nnotifications under the provisos to S. 9 have, of
\n860<\/span>
\ncourse,\t to  adjust their business in  accordance  with\t the
\nrequirements  of  the Act.  It is in the  context  of  these
\nexceptions and the elasticity for which provision is made to
\nmeet  the  imperative requirements of  particular  types  of
\nbusiness,  that\t the  constitutional  objection\t has  to  be
\nconsidered.\n<\/p>\n
The   constitutional   objection  is  that,   the   impugned
\nprovisions   impose   unreasonable   restrictions   on\t the
\nfundamental  right  of the petitioners “to  carry  on  their
\ntrade  or business”.  The regulation of contracts of  labour
\nso as to ameliorate their conditions of work is in reality a
\nproblem\t of  human relationship and social control  for\t the
\nadvancement  of\t the  community.   The\tpublic\tand   social
\ninterest  in the health and efficiency of the worker is,  at
\nthe present day, beyond challenge. Our Constitution does not
\nprotect or guarantee any fundamental right in the nature  of
\nthe provision in Art. 1, s. 10(1), of the U. S. Constitution
\nagainst\t “impairment of the obligation of  contracts”.\t The
\nonly  test of constitutional validity therefore\t is  whether
\nthe provision in the impugned law, which is enacted to avoid
\nphysical  overstrain of the worker, and so as to afford\t him
\nbetter\tconditions of work, and more regulated\thours,\tthus
\nensuring to him a reasonable amount of leisure-factors which
\nwould render the restrictions in the interest of the general
\npublic,\t is  unreasonable  from the point  of  view  of\t the
\nemployer. For answering this question it would be  necessary
\nto ask-are the restrictions necessary,\tor do they go beyond
\nwhat is reasonably needed to protect the worker?  Judged  by
\nthis  test, neither the 48-hour week, nor the  specification
\nof  the opening and closing hours can be said to  have\tgone
\nbeyond\twhat by modern standards are necessary for  ensuring
\nthe health and efficiency of the employee.  It might also be
\nadded  that the concept of what is necessary to\t secure\t the
\nwelfare of labour, or indeed of the elements which determine
\nits  content  are neither of them fixed or static,  but\t are
\ndynamic,  being\t merely the manifestation or  index  of\t the
\nsocial\tconscience  as it grows and develops  from  time  to
\ntime.\n<\/p>\n
Besides, this point regarding restrictions of this
\n861<\/span>
\nnature\t being\t unreasonable  is  concluded   against\t the
\npetitioners by the decision of this Court in Manohar Lal  v.
\nThe  State of Punjab<\/a> (1) judgment on which was delivered  on
\nNovember  11, 1960.  The provision there  impugned was s.  7
\nof  the Punjab Trade Employees Act, 1940, (which, as  stated
\nearlier, had been repealed and re-enacted with modifications
\nby the Act) which directed that the shops and establishments
\nto  which it applied should remain closed on one day in\t the
\nweek  (corresponding  to  s. 10 of the Act  of\t1958).\t The
\nappellant  before this Court was a small trader who did\t not
\nemploy\tany  person  under  him but  who,  like\t the  second
\npetitioner before us, himself with the members of his family
\nattended  to  all  the requirements  of\t his  shop.   Basing
\nhimself\t on this feature he challenged the validity  of\t the
\nprovision  which  restricted  his  right  to  carry  on\t his
\nbusiness in such manner as he chose on all the seven days in
\nthe week.  In repelling these objections this Court said:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  ratio  of  the  legislation\t is   social
\n\t      interest in the health of the worker who forms
\n\t      an  essential  part of the  community  and  in
\n\t      whose  welfare,  therefore, the  community  is
\n\t      vitally  interested.   It is in the  light  of
\n\t      this  purpose that the provisions of  the\t Act
\n\t      have  to\tbe  scrutinized…….\tThe  learned
\n\t      Judges  of  the High Court have  rested  their
\n\t      decision\ton  this  part of the  case  on\t the
\n\t      reasoning\t that  the  terms  of  the  impugned
\n\t      section might be justified on the ground\tthat
\n\t      it is designed in the interest of the owner of
\n\t      the shop or establishment himself and that his
\n\t      health and welfare is a matter of interest not
\n\t      only  to himself but to the general  public..A
\n\t\t\t    restriction imposed, with a view to secure thi
\ns
\n\t      purpose  would,  in our  opinion,\t be  clearly
\n\t      saved  by Art. 19(6)… Apart from  this,\t the
\n\t      constitutionality\t of the\t impugned  provision
\n\t      might  be\t sustained on another  ground  also,
\n\t      viz.,   with  a  view  to\t avoid\tevasion\t  of
\n\t      provisions   specifically\t designed  for\t the
\n\t      protection  of  workmen employed.\t It  may  be
\n\t      pointed  out that acts innocent in  themselves
\n\t      may be prohibited and the restrictions in that
\n\t      regard would
\n(1)  [1961] 2 S.C.R. 343.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
862<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      be  reasonable, if the same were necessary  to
\n\t      secure  the  efficient  enforcement  of  valid
\n\t      provisions.   The\t inclusion of  a  reasonable
\n\t      margin  to ensure effective  enforcement\twill
\n\t      not  stamp  a law otherwise  valid  as  within
\n\t      legislative  competence with the character  of
\n\t      unconstitutionality as being unreasonable.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These  observations,  in  our  opinion,\t clearly  apply\t and
\nsuffice\t to support the validity of the\t related  provisions
\nhere impugned.\n<\/p>\n
The petition fails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    Petition dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ramdhandas And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1559, 1962 SCR (1) 852 Author: N R Ayyangar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B., Sarkar, A.K., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala PETITIONER: RAMDHANDAS AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223739","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRamdhandas And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramdhandas And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-03T05:52:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramdhandas And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-03T05:52:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961\"},\"wordCount\":2831,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961\",\"name\":\"Ramdhandas And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-03T05:52:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramdhandas And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramdhandas And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramdhandas And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-03T05:52:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramdhandas And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1961","datePublished":"1961-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-03T05:52:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961"},"wordCount":2831,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961","name":"Ramdhandas And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-03T05:52:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramdhandas-and-another-vs-the-state-of-punjab-on-10-april-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramdhandas And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 10 April, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223739","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223739"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223739\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223739"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223739"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223739"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}