The concept of freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse holds great significance in the Indian constitutional framework established in 1950. This abstract explores the constitutional provisions and legal interpretations surrounding this fundamental right, emphasizing its relevance to economic development, national integration, and fostering a unified market within India.

The Indian Constitution, in Article 19(1)(g), guarantees the fundamental right to practice any profession, carry on any occupation, trade, or business. This provision aims to facilitate economic growth and individual autonomy, enabling citizens to engage in commercial activities of their choice. However, this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of the general public under Article 19(6).

The Constitution, recognizing the importance of a unified market, also ensures freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse across the country. Article 301 prohibits any restrictions on the movement of goods, services, or people that hinder the smooth flow of trade between states. Nonetheless, the state has the power to enact laws in the public interest, provided they do not disproportionately burden trade or discriminate against other states.

The objective of this paper is to discuss the importance and nitty-gritty of trade, commerce and intercourse that are given under Articles 301 to 307 and further examine the importance of each of the specific provisions and elaborate on when restrictions can be imposed on trade and when it cannot, questioning the sole factor i.e. public interest.

Over the years, Indian courts have interpreted and clarified the scope of these provisions. The Supreme Court has emphasized that restrictions on trade and commerce must be reasonable, proportionate, and not arbitrary. It has upheld the state's power to regulate trade to protect public health, morality, and the environment, but has struck down measures that unduly impede the freedom of trade without valid justification.

The concept of freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse has played a pivotal role in India's economic liberalization. The dismantling of inter-state trade barriers, the introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST), and the establishment of a unified national market have fostered economic integration and facilitated ease of doing business across the country.

Additionally, the Constitution empowers the central government to impose restrictions on trade with foreign nations in the interest of national security, public health, and international obligations.

Furthermore, freedom of trade and commerce has contributed to national integration by promoting inter-state economic cooperation, breaking down regional barriers, and encouraging cultural exchange. The Constitution envisions a harmonious and unified India, where economic activities transcend state boundaries, fostering a sense of collective progress and prosperity.

Thus, the Indian Constitution of 1950 guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse, emphasizing the importance of economic growth, national integration, and a unified market. While subject to reasonable restrictions, this right has played a crucial role in shaping India's economic policies, enabling inter-state trade, and fostering a sense of unity among diverse regions. The ongoing interpretation and evolution of these provisions by the judiciary continue to shape India's trade and commerce landscape.

Introduction To Trade And Its Adoption

Trade and commerce play a vital role in the economic development and well-being of any nation. Recognizing the importance of trade, the Indian Constitution, specifically Part XIII, contains provisions to regulate and facilitate trade and commerce within the territory of India. These provisions, consisting of Articles 301 to 307, establish guidelines and principles for the smooth flow of trade and allow for the imposition of reasonable restrictions, if necessary.

Article 301 of the Indian Constitution is considered the primary reference for regulating trade and commerce within India. It states that trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the territory of India should be free. This article ensures that there are no barriers or obstacles to the movement of goods, services, and people within the country[i]. It promotes the concept of a single economic unit by facilitating the free flow of trade across state boundaries. This provision was included to prevent any discriminatory practices that could impede trade and commerce within India.

Trade can be categorized into two distinct types:

1. Interstate trade:
   This refers to trade conducted between multiple states or between a foreign country and an individual state within India. Interstate trade involves the movement of goods and services across state borders, thereby contributing to the overall economic development and integration of different regions.
    
2. Intrastate trade:
   This category pertains to trade and commerce conducted solely within the territorial boundaries of a particular state. Intrastate trade predominantly influences the local economy, promoting internal trade activities and enhancing the economic well-being of the state.

Trade barriers, such as tariffs, quotas, or non-tariff restrictions, are widely regarded as having adverse effects on a state's economy. These barriers impede the free flow of goods and services, impinging upon the state's ability to achieve its desired maximum output. It is important to recognize that each state possesses its own set of rules and regulations, which are enacted in the interest of the public.[ii]

However, while Article 301 guarantees the free flow of trade, it also recognizes the need for certain restrictions in the interest of public welfare. Articles 302 to 307 elaborate on the reasonable restrictions that can be imposed by the Parliament and State Legislatures on trade and commerce activities within the scope of the Indian state.

These reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the following grounds:

1. Public Order:
   Restrictions can be placed on trade and commerce activities if they pose a threat to public order, peace, or security. This ensures that trade does not lead to disturbances or unrest in society.
    
2. Health and Morality:
   Restrictions can be imposed to protect public health, morality, and the general welfare of the people. This includes measures such as regulating the sale of hazardous goods or banning the trade of certain harmful substances.
    
3. Restrictions in the Interest of the Indian State:
   The government can impose restrictions on trade and commerce for the protection and promotion of Indian industries. This includes imposing tariffs, quotas, or other trade barriers to safeguard domestic industries from unfair competition.
    
4. Protection of Scheduled Tribes:
   Restrictions can be imposed to protect the interests of scheduled tribes, particularly in relation to trade and commerce activities in tribal areas. This is aimed at preserving their culture, livelihoods, and economic well-being.
    
5. Public Utility Services:
   Restrictions can be imposed on trade and commerce activities that are directly related to public utility services, such as electricity, water, or transportation. This ensures the efficient provision of essential services to the public

The imposition of legitimate trade restrictions by states should not be viewed as curbing the freedom of trade and commerce within the country. Rather, such restrictions are implemented to safeguard public welfare, maintain national security, protect domestic industries, or fulfil international commitments. These measures are in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, fiscal policy, and the overall public interest.[iii]

From a legal standpoint, it is imperative to establish a balance between the free flow of trade and the regulatory framework governing trade activities. This necessitates careful consideration of constitutional provisions, international trade agreements, domestic legislation, and judicial precedents. The regulatory framework must aim to promote fair competition, protect consumer rights, ensure the efficient functioning of markets, and maintain a conducive business environment.

Furthermore, legal mechanisms such as dispute resolution mechanisms, arbitration, and administrative procedures should be in place to address any trade-related conflicts or grievances that may arise[iv]. This allows for the resolution of disputes in a timely and impartial manner, thereby upholding the integrity and stability of the trade ecosystem.

Therefore, the inclusion of Part XIII in the Indian Constitution was inspired by Section 92 of the Australian Constitution. The framers of the Indian Constitution recognized the significance of promoting the free flow of trade and commerce across different geographical areas of the country. By adopting similar provisions, they aimed to create a unified economic space within India, ensuring equal opportunities for individuals from diverse regions.

The provisions from Articles 301 to 307 of Part XIII of the Indian Constitution establish the guidelines and principles for regulating trade and commerce within India. While Article 301 ensures the free flow of trade, the subsequent articles allow for reasonable restrictions in the interest of public welfare, the protection of Indian industries, and other vital considerations. These provisions aim to strike a balance between facilitating trade and commerce and regulating them for the overall development and welfare of the nation.

Article 301 Of The Indian Constitution, 1950

Article 301[v] of the Indian Constitution is a pivotal provision that guarantees the liberty of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the country. To fully comprehend the implications of this article, it is essential to delve deeper into the meaning and scope of the key terms it employs: trade, commerce, and intercourse.

In common parlance, trade generally refers to the act of buying and selling goods or services to make a profit. However, within the context of Article 301, trade assumes a broader and more structured meaning. It encompasses a systematic and organized exchange of goods and services for commercial purposes. The term trade is often used interchangeably with business, underscoring the commercial aspect of economic activities.[vi]

Commerce, on the other hand, pertains to the transmission or movement of goods, services, or information through various mediums such as air, water, telephone, telegraph, or any other means of communication. Within the scope of Article 301, commerce specifically relates to the transportation or transmission aspect and does not solely focus on the aspect of financial gain or profit. It encompasses the movement of goods, services, and information across different regions or states.

Intercourse, as understood within the context of Article 301, refers to the movement of goods from one place to another. It encompasses both commercial and non-commercial movements and transactions. Intercourse includes travel and all forms of interactions and dealings between individuals and entities, facilitating the exchange of goods, services, and ideas.

It is important to note that the use of the term "free" in Article 301 does not imply absolute freedom from all laws and regulations governing the country. The concept of "freedom" in this context signifies the absence of barriers or restrictions that hinder the movement of persons, property, and goods. It emphasizes the need for a smooth and unimpeded flow of trade, commerce, and intercourse within the country.

However, it is crucial to understand that this freedom is not absolute or unbounded. While Article 301 guarantees the liberty of trade, commerce, and intercourse, it does not negate the existence of laws and regulations that govern these activities. The Constitution recognizes the distinction between laws that obstruct freedom and those that establish rules and regulations for the proper conduct of trade activities. The purpose is to ensure that trade and commerce operate within a framework that promotes fairness, transparency, and the overall welfare of the nation.

Thus, Article 301 of the Indian Constitution upholds the liberty of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the country. Trade involves the structured exchange of goods and services, commerce encompasses the transmission or movement of goods, services, or information, and intercourse encompasses the movement of goods and all forms of interactions. The "freedom" mentioned in Article 301 refers to the absence of barriers or restrictions on these activities while acknowledging the need for laws and regulations to ensure fair and proper conduct.

Activities That Are Not Under The Ambit Of Trade

Under the Indian Constitution, while trade and commerce play a crucial role in economic growth and development, there are specific activities that do not fall within the scope of trade. It is essential to understand and differentiate these activities from trade to ensure clarity in their regulation and governance[vii]. Here is a more elaborate explanation of activities that are not considered trade under the Indian Constitution:

1. Personal Transactions:
   The Indian Constitution recognizes that certain transactions are purely personal in nature and do not qualify as trade. These transactions involve the exchange, gifting, or transfer of personal belongings, services provided by individuals to their family members or friends without any commercial motive, and activities undertaken for personal enjoyment or satisfaction. These activities are outside the realm of commercial transactions and are governed by personal laws rather than trade laws.
    
2. Non-Profit Activities:
   Activities conducted by charitable organizations, NGOs, and other non-profit entities are not considered trade. These activities are carried out with the primary objective of serving social or humanitarian causes, rather than generating profits. Examples include providing free education, healthcare services, conducting charitable events, or carrying out community development projects. Such activities are subject to specific regulations and laws governing non-profit organizations.
    
3. Government Functions:
   Various functions performed by the government are not considered trade. These functions include the provision of public services, regulation of markets, enforcement of laws and regulations, and maintenance of law and order. Government activities are undertaken in the public interest and are not driven by profit motives. They are governed by administrative and public law frameworks, separate from trade regulations.
    
4. Criminal Activities:
   Illicit activities, such as smuggling, black market operations, money laundering, and other illegal practices, do not fall within the scope of trade. These activities are prohibited by law and are subject to separate legal frameworks for their regulation and punishment. They are considered criminal offences and are dealt with under criminal law provisions.
    
5. Intellectual Property Rights:
   The exercise of intellectual property rights, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets, is not categorized as trade. Intellectual property rights grant exclusive rights to creators or owners of intangible assets, enabling them to control the use, reproduction, and distribution of their creations or inventions. These rights are protected under intellectual property laws, which are distinct from trade laws.
    
6. Governmental Regulations and Powers:
   The exercise of governmental powers and regulatory functions, such as the imposition of taxes, duties, tariffs, and trade restrictions, is not considered a trade. These activities are part of the regulatory framework established by the government to maintain law and order, promote economic stability, protect national interests, and ensure compliance with legal obligations. They are governed by specific statutes and regulations related to taxation, customs, and trade policy.

It is important to note that while these activities are not considered trade under the Indian Constitution, they may still have legal implications and be subject to specific laws and regulations. The distinction between trade and these activities ensures that they are governed by appropriate legal frameworks that address their unique characteristics and objectives.

Understanding this distinction helps provide clear and tailored legal frameworks for the regulation and governance of these activities, contributing to a well-functioning legal system and promoting overall socio-economic development in India.

Distinction Between Article 19 And Article 301

Both Article 19[viii] and Article 301 of the Indian Constitution play significant roles in safeguarding the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse within the country. However, there are key distinctions between these two provisions in terms of their scope and focus[ix]. Let's delve into a detailed note on the distinction between Article 19 and Article 301:

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to freedom. It encompasses several freedoms, including the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom to assemble peacefully, the freedom to form associations or unions, the freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India, the freedom to reside and settle in any part of the country, and the freedom to practice any profession, occupation, trade, or business.

The freedom to practice any profession, occupation, trade, or business, as mentioned in Article 19(1)(g), is closely related to trade and commerce. It provides individuals with the liberty to engage in economic activities and pursue their chosen occupations or businesses. However, this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the state in the interest of public order, morality, health, and the protection of the rights and interests of others. These restrictions are outlined in Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

On the other hand, Article 301 specifically focuses on the liberty of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the country. It emphasizes the need for a smooth and unimpeded flow of trade and commerce within India's territories, promoting economic unity and growth. Article 301 ensures that there are no barriers or restrictions that impede the movement of goods, services, and people across state boundaries.

Unlike Article 19, which encompasses a broader range of freedoms, Article 301 specifically addresses the economic aspect of freedom. It aims to create a unified economic space by eliminating trade barriers and promoting the free exchange of goods, services, and interactions between individuals and entities. While Article 19 focuses on individual freedoms and rights, Article 301 emphasizes the collective interests of economic development and integration.

Another important distinction lies in the nature of restrictions applicable to these provisions. Under Article 19, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights to ensure public welfare and the protection of other individuals' rights. These restrictions are subject to judicial review to determine their reasonableness and conformity with constitutional principles.

In contrast, Article 301 places restrictions on the state's power to regulate trade and commerce. It mandates that any law or regulation that seeks to restrict trade and commerce must satisfy the test of reasonableness and be in the public interest. The Constitution recognizes that restrictions on trade and commerce can be imposed to safeguard public order, health, and the protection of scheduled tribes, or for the operation of public utility services.

In summary, the definitive scope of distinction was elaborated by the Doctrine of Res Extra Commercium[x] and in the case of Haji Usman Haji Mohammed v. State of Madhya Pradesh[xi] where it was concluded that both Article 19 and Article 301 uphold the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse, they differ in their scope and focus. Article 19 guarantees a broader range of fundamental freedoms, including the freedom to practice any profession, occupation, trade, or business.

Article 301 specifically addresses the economic aspect of freedom, promoting the unimpeded flow of trade and commerce across state boundaries. The restrictions applicable to these provisions also differ, with Article 19 allowing reasonable restrictions in the interest of public welfare, while Article 301 limits the state's power to regulate trade and commerce to ensure the smooth functioning of the economy.

Parliament's Power To Control Trade And Commerce Within The Public Interest

Article 302[xii] of the Indian Constitution empowers the Parliament to impose restrictions on the liberty of trade, commerce, or intercourse within a state or across states anywhere within the territory of India. These restrictions can only be enforced if they are considered to be in the public interest. The determination of whether a restriction is in the public interest or not lies solely at the discretion of the Parliament.

In the landmark case of Surajmal Roopchand and Co v. The State of Rajasthan[xiii], the issue at hand was the imposition of restrictions on the movement of grain under the Defence of India Rules. The Defence of India Rules is legislation that grants the government special powers to impose emergency measures during times of war or national emergency.

In this case, the government imposed restrictions on the movement of grain in the interest of the general public during a period of crisis or emergency. The primary objective of such restrictions was likely to ensure the equitable distribution of food supplies and prevent hoarding or black-marketing that could lead to scarcity and price inflation.

The court, in its ruling, recognized the authority of the Parliament to impose such restrictions under Article 302, as long as they are justified as being in the public interest. The judiciary refrains from questioning the wisdom or policy decisions of the Parliament when it comes to issues related to public interest and emergencies. The courts generally adopt a deferential approach and are cautious not to interfere with the legislative judgment unless there is a clear violation of constitutional principles.

It is important to note that while the Parliament has the power to impose restrictions on trade, commerce, or intercourse in the public interest, it must ensure that such restrictions are reasonable, proportionate, and necessary to address the specific concern at hand. Moreover, the restrictions should be temporary and lifted as soon as the crisis or emergency abates.

The principle of proportionality ensures that any restriction imposed on fundamental rights, including the freedom of trade and commerce, is not excessive and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the stated objective. This principle acts as a safeguard against potential abuse of power and arbitrary actions.

State's Power To Control Trade And Commerce

Article 302 of the Indian Constitution grants the Parliament the power to impose restrictions on the liberty of trade, commerce, or intercourse within a state or across states anywhere in India. However, this power is subject to certain limitations imposed by Article 303[xiv] and Article 304(a)[xv].

Article 303(1) restricts the Parliament from making any law that gives preference to one state over another state in matters of trade and commerce, under any entry in trade and commerce in any of the lists in the Seventh Schedule. This provision ensures that no state is put in a more favourable or advantageous position in trade and commerce compared to another state. It prevents the Parliament from enacting laws that may discriminate against or unfairly favour a particular state in trade-related matters.

Further, Article 304(a) allows states to impose taxes on goods transported or imported from other states if similar goods manufactured or produced within the state are also subject to taxation. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that there is no discrimination between goods produced within the state and goods imported from other states. It prevents states from imposing discriminatory taxes on goods based on their origin.

In the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai[xvi], the State of Madhya Pradesh imposed taxes on foreign tobacco, which was not subject to taxation within its territory (State of Madhya Pradesh). The Supreme Court of India censured this tax statement as discriminatory. The court held that such discriminatory taxation violated the principles laid down in Article 304(a) and, as a result, was unconstitutional.

The court's ruling emphasized the importance of avoiding discrimination between goods produced or imported from other states and goods produced within the state. The objective of Article 304(a) is to ensure a level playing field for all goods, irrespective of their origin, within the country.

In summary, while Article 302 grants the Parliament the power to impose restrictions on trade, commerce, or intercourse, this power is not absolute. It is subject to the limitations imposed by Article 303 and Article 304(a). Article 303(1) prevents the Parliament from giving preferential treatment to one state over another in trade matters, and Article 304(a) ensures that states cannot impose discriminatory taxes on goods based on their origin. The case of Bhailal Bhai v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reaffirmed the importance of adhering to these principles and upholding a fair and non-discriminatory trade environment within the country.
 

Restrictions On Trade, Commerce, And Intercourse Among States

Clause (2) of Article 304 of the Indian Constitution guides the states regarding the imposition of reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse. While the states have the authority to impose such restrictions in the interest of the public, certain conditions need to be met, and the Parliament's supremacy in regulating trade and commerce is emphasized.

The key points to consider are as follows:

1. Approval from the President:
   Before a state can propose any bill or amendment to regulate trade and commerce, it must seek approval from the President of India. This ensures that any proposed restriction is subjected to a higher level of scrutiny and is consistent with the broader interests of the nation.
    
2. Reasonable and Rational Restrictions:
   Any restrictions imposed by the state must be reasonable and rational. This means that the restrictions should not be excessive, disproportionate, or arbitrary. They should be carefully designed to achieve a legitimate public interest objective, and their impact on trade and commerce should be balanced and proportionate.
    
3. In the Interest of the Public:
   The primary condition for imposing restrictions on trade and commerce is that they must be in the interest of the public. This criterion ensures that any measures taken by the state do not undermine public welfare or create unnecessary barriers to economic activity.

It is important to note that while the states have the power to impose reasonable restrictions on trade and commerce, the Parliament's authority in this matter remains superior. This is because the Constitution grants the Parliament the power to regulate trade and commerce, as stipulated in Article 301, subject to certain limitations and exceptions.

The Parliament's authority in regulating trade and commerce is not absolute, as it is restricted by Article 302, which allows for the imposition of restrictions in the interest of the public. However, Article 304 further reinforces the Parliament's supremacy by requiring state laws imposing such restrictions to receive the President's approval.

By requiring states to seek approval from the President and ensuring that the restrictions are reasonable and in the public interest, the Constitution strikes a balance between the states' autonomy and the need for a unified and coherent national trade policy. It acknowledges the importance of local considerations while also safeguarding the overall economic interests of the country.

In conclusion, Clause (2) of Article 304 guides the states in imposing reasonable restrictions on trade and commerce. The conditions specified in this clause, including seeking approval from the President, ensuring reasonableness, and serving the public interest, underscore the Parliament's superior authority in regulating trade and commerce. This approach strikes a balance between state autonomy and national economic interests and fosters a harmonious and cohesive trade environment in the country.

Saving Of Existing Laws
Article 305[xvii] of the Indian Constitution serves to protect existing laws and laws that provide for State monopolies. It ensures that these laws remain valid and effective until and unless the President issues an order to the contrary or unless they are modified or repealed by a subsequent law.

In the case of Saghir Ahmad v. The State of UP[xviii], the Supreme Court raised the question of whether an Act that establishes a State monopoly in a specific trade or commerce would be considered as offending the Constitution of India under Article 301.

Article 301 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the territory of India. It ensures that trade and commerce flow freely across state borders without any undue restrictions or barriers. However, Article 302 provides an exception, allowing the Parliament to impose reasonable restrictions on this freedom in the interest of the public.

Article 305 comes into play to protect existing laws that may conflict with the principles of free trade and commerce under Article 301. If there is a State law that establishes a monopoly in a particular trade or commerce, it will be saved by Article 305, and its validity will not be questioned under Article 301. This means that the State law providing for a monopoly will continue to operate until and unless it is challenged and struck down for being unconstitutional.

Additionally, Article 307[xix] of the Indian Constitution empowers the Parliament to appoint an authority for the effective implementation of the provisions laid down in Articles 301, 302, 303, and 304, which deal with the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse and the imposition of reasonable restrictions. The Parliament has the discretion to designate such authority and bestow it with functions and powers as it deems necessary.

The authority appointed under Article 307 plays a crucial role in ensuring the proper implementation and enforcement of the provisions related to trade and commerce. It helps in harmonizing the interests of different states and ensuring that the trade and commerce activities within the country operate smoothly and in compliance with the constitutional framework.

In conclusion, Article 305 of the Indian Constitution protects existing laws and State monopolies from being invalidated under Article 301. However, these laws must not be contrary to the Constitution as a whole or any specific provisions. The appointment of an authority under Article 307 ensures effective implementation and enforcement of the provisions related to trade, commerce, and the imposition of reasonable restrictions. This framework helps in maintaining a balance between the freedom of trade and the interests of the public and the states.

Landmark Judgments And Case Laws

1. Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v/s The State of Assam
   In the case of Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State of Assam[xx], the constitutional validity of the Assam Taxation Act was brought before the Supreme Court for examination. The Act in question imposed taxes on goods transported through inland waterways and roads in the state of Assam. The petitioner, Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd., was involved in the business of transporting tea to Kolkata through Assam and contended that the Act violated Article 301 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the territory of India. Additionally, the petitioner raised the question of whether the Act could be saved from being unconstitutional by falling under the ambit of Article 304(b) of the Constitution.
   
   Article 301 of the Indian Constitution forms a cornerstone in promoting economic unity and integration within the country by ensuring the free flow of trade and commerce across state borders without any internal barriers or restrictions. It empowers individuals and businesses to engage in trade activities without undue hindrance, fostering economic growth and development.
   
   The Supreme Court, in its analysis of the disputed law, found that the Assam Taxation Act indeed imposed taxes on goods being transported through the state's inland waterways and roads. These taxes directly and immediately hindered the movement of goods, and as such, the Act fell within the purview of Article 301.
   
   However, Article 304(b) of the Constitution provides an exception to the freedom of trade and commerce by allowing states to impose taxes on goods imported from other states if similar goods produced or manufactured within the state are also subjected to taxation. But, crucially, such imposition of taxes requires the sanction of the President before any state can enact such a law.
   
   In the present case, the Supreme Court determined that the requirements of Article 304(b) were not fulfilled. The Assam Taxation Act, which levied taxes on goods passing through the state, had not obtained the requisite sanction of the President. Therefore, the Act could not be protected under Article 304(b).
   
   The Court underscored the paramount importance of preserving the freedom guaranteed under Article 301. It emphasized that the constitutional guarantee of free trade and commerce would lose its significance if the transmission of goods was obstructed without adhering to the standards outlined in Articles 302 to 304 of the Constitution.
   
   In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling in the Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. case reinforced the vital importance of upholding the freedom of trade and commerce as enshrined in Article 301. It clarified that any taxes or regulations that impede the movement of goods must meet the conditions specified in the relevant provisions of the Constitution, including Article 304(b). The ruling served as a reminder that the seamless flow of goods is a fundamental aspect of national economic unity and integration, and any restrictions on this freedom should be meticulously scrutinized and in compliance with the constitutional framework.
    
2. Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan
   In the case of Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan[xxi], the State of Rajasthan imposed an annual tax on motor automobiles, with different tax rates for motor vehicles and goods vehicles. The appellant challenged the validity of this tax under Article 301 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the territory of India. The central question was whether this tax was constitutionally valid and whether it violated the freedom of trade and commerce.
   
   The Supreme Court, in its analysis of the disputed tax, held that in the present case, the tax imposed was valid. It was considered to be a regulatory measure or a compensatory tax aimed at facilitating the smooth functioning of trade, commerce, and intercourse. The Court emphasized that taxes are essential tools for a state to maintain its economic health and stability. The concept of "Compensatory or Regulatory Taxes" has evolved to ensure that the state can levy taxes that serve the purpose of compensation for public interests and regulatory purposes if required.
   
   Compensatory or regulatory taxes are imposed with the intention of compensating the public for any specific benefits or services provided by the government that contribute to facilitating trade and commerce. They are designed to offset any costs incurred by the government in providing infrastructure, services, or facilities that aid the smooth operation of trade activities.
   
   The Supreme Court further clarified that if such a tax or regulatory measure is challenged in court as an infringement or a violation of the freedom guaranteed under Article 301, it would not be considered as such. This means that the imposition of compensatory or regulatory taxes, which aim to serve public interests and facilitate trade, would not be viewed as impeding the freedom of trade and commerce and would not require validation under Article 304(b) of the Constitution.
   
   In essence, the Automobile Transport Ltd. case established the validity of compensatory or regulatory taxes and affirmed that they serve essential purposes in maintaining the economic well-being of the state and promoting the smooth functioning of trade and commerce. Such taxes, which are designed to compensate for public benefits and support regulatory measures, are constitutionally sound and do not infringe upon the freedom of trade and commerce guaranteed by Article 301. Therefore, they do not require further validation under Article 304(b) of the Constitution.
    
3. H. Sanjeeviah v. State of Mysore
   In the case of H. Sanjeeviah v. The State of Mysore[xxii], the issue before the Supreme Court was the constitutionality of a regulation imposed under the Mysore Forest Act, of 1900. This regulation banned the movement of forest produce between dawn and sunset, essentially restricting the transportation and trade of such goods during specific hours of the day. The key question before the court was whether this regulation violated the freedom guaranteed under Article 301 of the Indian Constitution.
   
   Article 301 of the Constitution ensures the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout the territory of India. It is a fundamental right that allows individuals and businesses to engage in trade and transportation of goods and services without any internal barriers or restrictions imposed by the state.
   
   In its ruling, the Supreme Court held the regulation void and declared it as violating the freedom assured under Article 301. The Court made a clear distinction between restrictive measures and regulatory measures. Regulatory measures are those that are imposed in the public interest to facilitate trade and commerce or to maintain the smooth functioning of economic activities. On the other hand, restrictive measures directly hinder or impede the movement of goods and services, thus infringing upon the freedom of trade.
   
   In this case, the Court found that the regulation banning the movement of forest produce between dawn and sunset was not a regulatory measure aimed at promoting the efficient functioning of trade. Instead, it was a restrictive measure that directly hindered the movement of goods during specific hours of the day. This restriction was considered unreasonable and unnecessary, as it did not serve any valid public interest or regulatory purpose.
   
   By declaring the regulation void, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the significance of preserving the freedom of trade and commerce guaranteed under Article 301. It emphasized that any restrictions on trade must be carefully scrutinized to ensure they are reasonable, proportionate, and genuinely serve public welfare or regulatory objectives. Restrictions that unreasonably impede the free movement of goods and services may be deemed violative of the constitutional right to trade and commerce.
   
   In summary, the State of Mysore v. Sanjeeviah case underscores the importance of upholding the freedom of trade and commerce as enshrined in Article 301 of the Constitution. It reminds the government and authorities that any regulations or restrictions on trade should be reasonable and in the public interest, without unduly hindering the free flow of goods and services within the country. The ruling serves as a safeguard to ensure that trade and commerce can thrive unimpeded, promoting economic unity and integration across different states and regions of India.
    
4. G.K. Krishna v. State of Tamil Nadu
   In the case of G.K Krishna v/s State of Tamil Nadu[xxiii], the issue at hand was the validity of a government notification under the Madras Motor Vehicles Act that increased the motor vehicle tax on omnibuses from Rs.30 to Rs.100. The government's rationale behind implementing this tax hike was to curb unhealthy competition between omnibuses and regular stage carriages and to reduce the misuse of omnibuses for commercial purposes. The petitioner raised two key questions: (a) Whether the tax was compensatory or regulatory in nature, and (b) Whether it constituted a barrier to the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse guaranteed under Article 301 of the Indian Constitution.
   
   The Supreme Court, in its ruling, held that the tax increase on carriage expenses was of a compensatory or regulatory nature and thus did not violate the freedom assured under Article 301. The Court explained the basis for its judgment, stating that taxes, when designed as compensatory or regulatory measures, are not restrictions but rather a means to facilitate trade.

A compensatory tax seeks to compensate the government for providing specific services or facilities that aid in the smooth functioning of trade and commerce. In this case, the tax increase was related to the maintenance of safe and efficient roads, which are essential for the smooth operation of public motor vehicles such as omnibuses. The Court recognized that the maintenance of such roads incurs costs to the government, and the use of public motor vehicles directly contributes to the wear and tear of these roads. Therefore, the implementation of the tax was considered reasonable and not an unreasonable restriction on trade.

The Court further clarified that no citizen has the right to avail of specific services without reimbursing the state for the cost of providing those services. Compensatory taxes are imposed to ensure that those benefiting from particular services or infrastructure contribute their fair share to maintain those services. It is not an additional burden but a fair reimbursement for the use of such facilities.

The judgment emphasized that the tax increase did not constitute a barrier to the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse. Instead, it served the legitimate purpose of compensating the government for maintaining roads that facilitated trade and commerce. The Court acknowledged the importance of having secure and efficient roads for the smooth functioning of automobiles, including public transport, and held that the tax increase was accurate and legitimate under the law.

In conclusion, the G.K Krishna v/s State of Tamil Nadu case reinforces the concept of compensatory or regulatory taxes and their role in facilitating trade and commerce. Such taxes, when designed to compensate for specific services or facilities, do not impede the freedom of trade. They ensure that those benefiting from particular services contribute their fair share, which is essential for maintaining a conducive environment for trade and commerce within the country. The ruling serves as a reminder that taxes, when reasonably imposed and not unduly burdensome, are instrumental in promoting economic stability and maintaining essential infrastructure for the smooth functioning of trade and transportation.

Therefore, it can be derived that the rulings discussed in various cases have played a pivotal role in safeguarding the relationship between freedom of trade and commerce in India. Through these judgments, the judiciary has emphasized the significance of upholding the constitutional guarantee provided by Article 301, which ensures the free movement of goods and services across the country.

The courts have distinguished between regulatory measures that promote trade and compensatory taxes aimed at facilitating economic activities and those restrictive measures that directly hinder the free flow of goods and services. By declaring restrictive regulations void and validating compensatory measures, the judiciary has reinforced the notion that trade and commerce should thrive unimpeded within the country.

These rulings have acted as a safeguard to prevent undue restrictions on trade and commerce, ensuring economic unity and integration across different states and regions of India. As a result, the freedom of trade and commerce remains a fundamental right, fostering economic growth and development while upholding the principles of fairness, efficiency, and the public interest.

Conclusion
In conclusion, while the Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse through Article 301, this freedom is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable regulations. Articles 302 to 305 play a crucial role in imposing such regulations and ensuring that trade is conducted lawfully both within states and across the country.

Articles 302 and 304 empower the Parliament and the state legislatures to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of trade and commerce in the interest of the public, while Article 303(1) prevents the Parliament from favouring one state over another in matters of trade and commerce. Article 305 saves existing laws and laws providing for State monopolies from being invalidated under Article 301.

Together, these provisions work harmoniously to strike a balance between the free flow of trade and the need for necessary regulations to safeguard public interest, economic stability, and fair competition. They ensure that trade is conducted within a framework that is conducive to the overall well-being of the nation and its citizens.

These constitutional provisions collectively uphold the importance of the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse as a fundamental aspect of economic unity and development within the country. They protect businesses and individuals engaged in trade from arbitrary and unreasonable interference, ensuring that trade activities are not hindered based on geographical variations or other arbitrary limitations.

While these provisions provide a robust framework for regulating trade, they also emphasize that any restrictions imposed must be reasonable, proportionate, and in the interest of the public. They prevent undue barriers to economic activities while allowing the government to take necessary measures to address specific concerns in trade and commerce.

Thus, it can be finally concluded that the Constitution ensures the provision of constitutional recognition to the freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse. Articles 302 to 305 create a comprehensive structure that guarantees a lawful and balanced environment for trade and commerce. This framework ensures that trade can flourish without unreasonable interference, enabling economic growth and integration across states and the nation as a whole.

End-Notes:

1. Trentmann, F., 'Free Trade Nation: Commerce, Consumption, And Civil Society In Modern Britain' Vol.53, (2010), https://doi.org/10.2979/victorianstudies.53.1.139 (Last Visited on Jul. 20, 2023).
2. Sanjay Rawat, Freedom to Trade, Commerce and Intercourse, https://sociallawstoday.com/freedom-to-trade-commerce-and-intercourse/ (Last Visited on Jul. 19, 2023)
3. Aneri Shah, 'Analysis of Freedom of Trade and Commerce in India under Indian Constitution', Vol.3, (2018), https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Aneri-Shah.pdf (Last Visited on Jul. 18, 2023).
4. Schoenbaum, T.J., 'Free International Trade and Protection of the Environment: Irreconcilable conflict?', Vol. 86, (1992), https://doi.org/10.2307/2203788 (Last Visited on Jul. 19, 2023)
5. The Constitution Of India, Art. 301, No.1, Act Of Parliament, 1950 (India).
6. Sandhya Prabakaran, Freedom of Trade and Commerce- A Constitutional Viewpoint, Vol.1 (2021) https://lawcolloquy.com/journals/pdf%206.pdf (Last Visited on Jul. 21, 2023)
7. Aastha Roy, 'Whether Trade, Commerce, Intercourse Free', Vol.9 (2020) https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v9i9/SR20923191620.pdf (Last Visited on Jul. 20, 2023).
8. The Constitution Of India, Art. 19, No.1, Act Of Parliament, 1950 (India).
9. Aparajitha Priyadarshini, Inter-relation Between Article 301 and Article 19(1)(g), https://www.indiclegal.com/post/inter-relation-between-article-301-and-article-19-1-g (Last Visited on Jul.20, 2023)
10. Advocate Khoj, https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/legalframework/14.php, (Jul. 22, 2023)
11. Haji Usman Haji Mohammed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1958 MP 33; 1958 CriLJ 181.
12. The Constitution Of India, Art. 302, No.1, Act Of Parliament, 1950 (India).
13. Surajmal Roopchand and Co v. the State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 Raj 104; 1967 CriLJ 809.
14. The Constitution Of India, Art. 303, No.1, Act Of Parliament, 1950 (India).
15. The Constitution Of India, Art. 304(a), No.1, Act Of Parliament, 1950 (India).
16. Bhailal Bhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1960 11 STC 511 MP.
17. The Constitution Of India, Art. 305, No.1, Act Of Parliament, 1950 (India).
18. Saghir Ahmad v. The State of UP, 1954 AIR 728; 1955 SCR 707.
19. The Constitution Of India, Art. 307, No.1, Act Of Parliament, 1950 (India).
20. Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 232; 1961 1 SCR 809.
21. Automobile Transport Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 1962 AIR 1406, 1963 SCR (1) 491.
22. H. Sanjeeviah v. State of Mysore, 1967 AIR 1189, 1967 SCR (2) 361.
23. G.K Krishna v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1975 AIR 583, 1975 SCR (2) 715.

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Rakshith Mukund

Authentication No: AG358119937155-3-0823