In assessing the appropriateness of the restriction, the Court should also take into account the nature of the restriction and the procedure laid down by the Statute for imposing the restriction on personal liberty. “The procedural provisions of a law are also taken into account in assessing its appropriateness,” the court said. The retroactive effect of the law may also be a relevant issue, although retrospective does not mean that it is wrong. Certainly, a law imposing a retroactive restriction is not inherently inappropriate. Hindsight is a factor to consider in determining whether the restriction is appropriate or not. Ultimately, it is for the courts, not Parliament, to determine whether or not a restriction is justified. Article 19, paragraph 6 – The Government may reasonably restrict freedom of occupation, occupation, commerce or enterprise for reasons of public order. In addition to the above reason, any restriction on freedom of occupation would be unconstitutional, and the restriction need not destroy the industry or business, but even if it creates a situation where it is impossible to conduct the business except under onerous conditions, such a restriction is declared unconstitutional.  In Express Newspapers v Union of India, the Supreme Court held that there must be a fair balance between the freedoms enshrined in section 19(1) and the social control permitted by clauses 2 to 6. In addition, the restriction imposed must be directly or immediately related to the objective pursued by the law. However, the term “adequate” has not been defined in the Constitution and no criteria have been established.
In this regard, the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution comes into play. Over time, the Supreme Court has established various criteria and principles regarding the concept of reasonable restraint in various cases. Article 19, paragraph 4, provides that the Government reserves the freedom to form associations and trade unions in the interests of public order – Restrictions in the interest of public order have been discussed above. Public order as a ground was added by the First Amendment Act of 1951. It is synonymous with public peace and tranquility. As noted above, the provision says “in the interest of public order” and not “maintenance of public order”, which is a broader concept. The question of the relationship between reasonable restrictions and principles of state policy was addressed by the Supreme Court in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, in which the Court held that a law that is normally intended to conform to a political principle constitutes the likelihood that the law constitutes an unreasonable restriction. In any case, there is no specific criterion or general pattern of relevance that can be established. Each case must be judged on its own merits. The threshold depends on the nature of the right infringed, the underlying objective of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the harm to be remedied, the disproportionate nature of the taxation and the current situation. These criteria must be taken into account in any judicial decision.
Much has been written about why the Court would take such radically different approaches to a “fundamental right” in a relatively short period of time. To learn more, this article from Minnesota Law Review offers an in-depth look at the change. The article rejects the idea that “the Lochner era was dominated by laissez-faire social Darwinist judges.” On the contrary, the article argues that “the shift of Lochner`s constitutional values to the West Coast Hotel was the result of developments in legal, economic, and political theory, as well as the harsh realities of economic life during the Great Depression. Taken together, these factors have been an important reason for the constitutional development embodied in West Coast Hotel. Citizens have fundamental rights under Article 19. Any person who is not and cannot be an Indian citizen shall not have access to or be entitled to the rights provided for in Article 19, paragraph 1. A right conferred by law on individuals or citizens as opposed to a fundamental right may be revoked or abrogated by law. No legislation can deprive a person of his or her fundamental rights; It can only impose reasonable restrictions on its exercise. (Dharam Dutt v. Union of India AIR 2004 S.C.
1294: (2004) 1 SCC 712). With respect to the reasonableness of the restriction imposed, it should be noted that the question is not whether the judge considers it appropriate or not, but whether or not a reasonable person would consider the restrictions to be appropriate. Freedoms, if absolute, would always be detrimental to the proper functioning of society, since the individual interests of all individuals would take precedence. This would lead to the withering away of the state, which would lead to anarchy. As the author of the law and executor of the law, the government should have the power to restrict liberty. However, there should be a balance between the freedom granted and the restrictions imposed. This balance depends on the proportionality of the restriction. The Constitution protects only restrictions that are reasonable, and the courts have established principles for measuring the appropriateness of a restriction. In the case of State of Kerala v.
Joseph Antony, the state government had banned mechanized nets and mid-sea trawlers in territorial waters. This decision was challenged in court on the grounds that it unreasonably restricted the freedom to choose a profession. The court noted that the government`s goal was to support the livelihoods of other poor fishermen who could not afford such expensive machinery.