Article 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the freedom to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. Among all Fundamental Rights, this provision has been one of the most severely litigated freedoms in India. The main reason is that economic activities directly affect public interest, social welfare, and government policy. While citizens demand maximum economic freedom, the State often imposes regulations in the name of public interest. This continuous conflict between individual freedom and State control has led to frequent constitutional challenges before courts.
Nature of Economic Freedom under Article 19(1)(g)
Economic freedom under Article 19(1)(g) is very wide in scope. It covers traditional professions like law and medicine as well as modern businesses like online platforms, digital payments, and cryptocurrency trading. Every regulation that affects entry into a profession, continuation of business, pricing, licensing, or closure can potentially restrict this freedom. Because the economy touches every citizen’s life, even small regulations can lead to litigation. Courts are often required to decide whether a restriction is reasonable or excessive.
Reason for Frequent Litigation
One major reason for severe litigation is that Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). The word reasonable is not clearly defined in the Constitution. This gives wide discretion to both the State and the judiciary. Governments often justify restrictions in the interest of public health, morality, economic planning, or social justice. Citizens and businesses challenge these restrictions as arbitrary or unfair. This clash has made Article 19(1)(g) a regular subject of constitutional cases.
Early Litigation and the Right to Property Connection
In the early years after Independence, most litigation related to economic freedom was connected with land reforms and property rights. Laws regulating land ownership, business activities, and trade were challenged for violating economic freedom. Courts initially tried to protect individual rights but gradually accepted that the Constitution aims to establish a welfare state. This shift led to more litigation as the balance between freedom and regulation was still evolving.
Licensing and Permit System
One of the most litigated aspects of Article 19(1)(g) has been licensing and permit requirements. Industries such as mining, transport, liquor, telecommunications, and banking require government permission. Business owners often challenge licence conditions as unreasonable restrictions. Courts have repeatedly held that licensing is valid if it serves public interest and follows fair procedure. However, arbitrary or discriminatory licensing has been struck down. These cases show how courts constantly supervise State regulation under this Article.
Regulation of Professions
Professional regulations have also led to extensive litigation. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, and other professionals are required to meet qualifications and follow ethical standards. Many have challenged such rules as restrictions on their freedom. Courts have upheld professional regulation, stating that public trust and safety justify such restrictions. This has strengthened regulatory bodies while clarifying that professional freedom is not unlimited.
Labour and Industrial Regulations
Labour laws are another major area of litigation under Article 19(1)(g). Employers often argue that laws on minimum wages, working hours, job security, and industrial disputes restrict their business freedom. On the other hand, workers rely on these laws for protection. Courts have generally supported labour welfare laws, stating that economic freedom cannot override social justice. These cases reflect the constitutional commitment to a welfare oriented economy.
Nationalisation and State Monopoly
The nationalisation of banks, insurance companies, and other industries led to intense litigation. Business owners argued that State monopoly destroyed their freedom to trade. Courts upheld most nationalisation laws, stating that Article 19(6) allows the State to exclude citizens from certain trades. This interpretation expanded State power and reduced individual economic freedom in selected sectors. These decisions remain important examples of how heavily Article 19(1)(g) has been contested.
Liberalisation and New Interpretation
After economic liberalisation in 1991, litigation under Article 19(1)(g) took a new direction. Businesses began challenging excessive regulation as harmful to free market principles. Courts became more sensitive to economic freedom and efficiency. While welfare laws were still upheld, unnecessary controls were questioned. This period shows how changing economic policy increased constitutional challenges related to trade and business freedom.
Digital Economy and Modern Litigation
In recent years, Article 19(1)(g) has been frequently invoked in cases related to the digital economy. Online platforms, e commerce, fintech companies, and cryptocurrency traders have challenged regulatory actions. The RBI cryptocurrency ban case is a strong example. The Supreme Court struck down the ban, stating that a complete restriction without evidence of harm is unreasonable. This case shows how Article 19(1)(g) continues to be actively litigated in response to technological change.
Role of Judiciary in Balancing Interests
The judiciary plays a central role in making Article 19(1)(g) workable. Courts apply tests like reasonableness and proportionality to decide cases. They examine whether restrictions serve public interest and whether less restrictive alternatives exist. Because economic conditions change, courts must constantly reinterpret this freedom. This judicial involvement naturally leads to more litigation.
Welfare State and Economic Control
India’s commitment to being a welfare state increases litigation under Article 19(1)(g). Welfare policies often require regulation, subsidies, price control, and reservation of certain sectors. Businesses challenge these measures, while the State defends them as necessary for economic justice. This structural tension ensures that litigation under this Article never stops.