Question Description
The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute. They are subject to restrictions placed in the subsequent clauses of Article19 according to the procedure established by law. No restrictions can be placed by mere executive or departmental instructions. However, these restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Each of these rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by Parliament.Restrictions may be enacted “in the interests of” public order of the general public. A restriction can be said to be in the interest of public order only if the connection between the restriction and the public order is direct and proximate. Hence a restriction to be constitutionally valid must satisfy the following two tests:A legislation arbitrarily invading the right of a person cannot be regarded as reasonable. A restriction to be valid must have a direct and proximate nexus with the object which the legislation seeks to achieve and the restriction must not be in excess of that object i.e., a balance between the freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) to (g) and the social control permitted by clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19. It is the substance of legislation and not its appearance or form which is to be taken into consideration while assessing its validity. This introduces the principle of ‘proportionality’. This means the court would consider whether the restriction imposed by legislation on the Fundamental Rights are disproportionate to the situation and are “not the least restrictive of the choices”.Retrospectivity of a law does not make it automatically unreasonable. A statute imposing a restriction with retrospective effect is not prima facie unreasonable, but retrospectivity is an element to be taken into consideration in determining whether the restriction is reasonable or not.A law may be reasonable, but the restriction imposed by it on the exercise of freedom may not be reasonable. A prohibition on the fundamental right to carry on occupation, trade or business is not regarded as reasonable if is it imposed not in the interests of the general public but keeping in view the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of a community whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the claimant.Q. In the state of Madhya Pradesh, an Act was passed to the extent that during the agricultural season, no one should engage in the manufacture of beedies. The object and intent of the legislature was that as there was dearth of labour in the agriculture sector, it was required to divert labour to the agriculture sector. This restriction of the freedom of occupation was questioned. Is this a reasonable restriction and is the state justified in doing so? a)The law is reasonable as the entire country depends on agriculture.b)The law is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of occupation.c)The law is reasonable if we understand the intent of the legislation.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute. They are subject to restrictions placed in the subsequent clauses of Article19 according to the procedure established by law. No restrictions can be placed by mere executive or departmental instructions. However, these restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Each of these rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by Parliament.Restrictions may be enacted “in the interests of” public order of the general public. A restriction can be said to be in the interest of public order only if the connection between the restriction and the public order is direct and proximate. Hence a restriction to be constitutionally valid must satisfy the following two tests:A legislation arbitrarily invading the right of a person cannot be regarded as reasonable. A restriction to be valid must have a direct and proximate nexus with the object which the legislation seeks to achieve and the restriction must not be in excess of that object i.e., a balance between the freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) to (g) and the social control permitted by clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19. It is the substance of legislation and not its appearance or form which is to be taken into consideration while assessing its validity. This introduces the principle of ‘proportionality’. This means the court would consider whether the restriction imposed by legislation on the Fundamental Rights are disproportionate to the situation and are “not the least restrictive of the choices”.Retrospectivity of a law does not make it automatically unreasonable. A statute imposing a restriction with retrospective effect is not prima facie unreasonable, but retrospectivity is an element to be taken into consideration in determining whether the restriction is reasonable or not.A law may be reasonable, but the restriction imposed by it on the exercise of freedom may not be reasonable. A prohibition on the fundamental right to carry on occupation, trade or business is not regarded as reasonable if is it imposed not in the interests of the general public but keeping in view the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of a community whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the claimant.Q. In the state of Madhya Pradesh, an Act was passed to the extent that during the agricultural season, no one should engage in the manufacture of beedies. The object and intent of the legislature was that as there was dearth of labour in the agriculture sector, it was required to divert labour to the agriculture sector. This restriction of the freedom of occupation was questioned. Is this a reasonable restriction and is the state justified in doing so? a)The law is reasonable as the entire country depends on agriculture.b)The law is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of occupation.c)The law is reasonable if we understand the intent of the legislation.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute. They are subject to restrictions placed in the subsequent clauses of Article19 according to the procedure established by law. No restrictions can be placed by mere executive or departmental instructions. However, these restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Each of these rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by Parliament.Restrictions may be enacted “in the interests of” public order of the general public. A restriction can be said to be in the interest of public order only if the connection between the restriction and the public order is direct and proximate. Hence a restriction to be constitutionally valid must satisfy the following two tests:A legislation arbitrarily invading the right of a person cannot be regarded as reasonable. A restriction to be valid must have a direct and proximate nexus with the object which the legislation seeks to achieve and the restriction must not be in excess of that object i.e., a balance between the freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) to (g) and the social control permitted by clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19. It is the substance of legislation and not its appearance or form which is to be taken into consideration while assessing its validity. This introduces the principle of ‘proportionality’. This means the court would consider whether the restriction imposed by legislation on the Fundamental Rights are disproportionate to the situation and are “not the least restrictive of the choices”.Retrospectivity of a law does not make it automatically unreasonable. A statute imposing a restriction with retrospective effect is not prima facie unreasonable, but retrospectivity is an element to be taken into consideration in determining whether the restriction is reasonable or not.A law may be reasonable, but the restriction imposed by it on the exercise of freedom may not be reasonable. A prohibition on the fundamental right to carry on occupation, trade or business is not regarded as reasonable if is it imposed not in the interests of the general public but keeping in view the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of a community whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the claimant.Q. In the state of Madhya Pradesh, an Act was passed to the extent that during the agricultural season, no one should engage in the manufacture of beedies. The object and intent of the legislature was that as there was dearth of labour in the agriculture sector, it was required to divert labour to the agriculture sector. This restriction of the freedom of occupation was questioned. Is this a reasonable restriction and is the state justified in doing so? a)The law is reasonable as the entire country depends on agriculture.b)The law is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of occupation.c)The law is reasonable if we understand the intent of the legislation.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute. They are subject to restrictions placed in the subsequent clauses of Article19 according to the procedure established by law. No restrictions can be placed by mere executive or departmental instructions. However, these restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Each of these rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by Parliament.Restrictions may be enacted “in the interests of” public order of the general public. A restriction can be said to be in the interest of public order only if the connection between the restriction and the public order is direct and proximate. Hence a restriction to be constitutionally valid must satisfy the following two tests:A legislation arbitrarily invading the right of a person cannot be regarded as reasonable. A restriction to be valid must have a direct and proximate nexus with the object which the legislation seeks to achieve and the restriction must not be in excess of that object i.e., a balance between the freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) to (g) and the social control permitted by clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19. It is the substance of legislation and not its appearance or form which is to be taken into consideration while assessing its validity. This introduces the principle of ‘proportionality’. This means the court would consider whether the restriction imposed by legislation on the Fundamental Rights are disproportionate to the situation and are “not the least restrictive of the choices”.Retrospectivity of a law does not make it automatically unreasonable. A statute imposing a restriction with retrospective effect is not prima facie unreasonable, but retrospectivity is an element to be taken into consideration in determining whether the restriction is reasonable or not.A law may be reasonable, but the restriction imposed by it on the exercise of freedom may not be reasonable. A prohibition on the fundamental right to carry on occupation, trade or business is not regarded as reasonable if is it imposed not in the interests of the general public but keeping in view the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of a community whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the claimant.Q. In the state of Madhya Pradesh, an Act was passed to the extent that during the agricultural season, no one should engage in the manufacture of beedies. The object and intent of the legislature was that as there was dearth of labour in the agriculture sector, it was required to divert labour to the agriculture sector. This restriction of the freedom of occupation was questioned. Is this a reasonable restriction and is the state justified in doing so? a)The law is reasonable as the entire country depends on agriculture.b)The law is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of occupation.c)The law is reasonable if we understand the intent of the legislation.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute. They are subject to restrictions placed in the subsequent clauses of Article19 according to the procedure established by law. No restrictions can be placed by mere executive or departmental instructions. However, these restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Each of these rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by Parliament.Restrictions may be enacted “in the interests of” public order of the general public. A restriction can be said to be in the interest of public order only if the connection between the restriction and the public order is direct and proximate. Hence a restriction to be constitutionally valid must satisfy the following two tests:A legislation arbitrarily invading the right of a person cannot be regarded as reasonable. A restriction to be valid must have a direct and proximate nexus with the object which the legislation seeks to achieve and the restriction must not be in excess of that object i.e., a balance between the freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) to (g) and the social control permitted by clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19. It is the substance of legislation and not its appearance or form which is to be taken into consideration while assessing its validity. This introduces the principle of ‘proportionality’. This means the court would consider whether the restriction imposed by legislation on the Fundamental Rights are disproportionate to the situation and are “not the least restrictive of the choices”.Retrospectivity of a law does not make it automatically unreasonable. A statute imposing a restriction with retrospective effect is not prima facie unreasonable, but retrospectivity is an element to be taken into consideration in determining whether the restriction is reasonable or not.A law may be reasonable, but the restriction imposed by it on the exercise of freedom may not be reasonable. A prohibition on the fundamental right to carry on occupation, trade or business is not regarded as reasonable if is it imposed not in the interests of the general public but keeping in view the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of a community whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the claimant.Q. In the state of Madhya Pradesh, an Act was passed to the extent that during the agricultural season, no one should engage in the manufacture of beedies. The object and intent of the legislature was that as there was dearth of labour in the agriculture sector, it was required to divert labour to the agriculture sector. This restriction of the freedom of occupation was questioned. Is this a reasonable restriction and is the state justified in doing so? a)The law is reasonable as the entire country depends on agriculture.b)The law is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of occupation.c)The law is reasonable if we understand the intent of the legislation.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute. They are subject to restrictions placed in the subsequent clauses of Article19 according to the procedure established by law. No restrictions can be placed by mere executive or departmental instructions. However, these restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Each of these rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by Parliament.Restrictions may be enacted “in the interests of” public order of the general public. A restriction can be said to be in the interest of public order only if the connection between the restriction and the public order is direct and proximate. Hence a restriction to be constitutionally valid must satisfy the following two tests:A legislation arbitrarily invading the right of a person cannot be regarded as reasonable. A restriction to be valid must have a direct and proximate nexus with the object which the legislation seeks to achieve and the restriction must not be in excess of that object i.e., a balance between the freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) to (g) and the social control permitted by clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19. It is the substance of legislation and not its appearance or form which is to be taken into consideration while assessing its validity. This introduces the principle of ‘proportionality’. This means the court would consider whether the restriction imposed by legislation on the Fundamental Rights are disproportionate to the situation and are “not the least restrictive of the choices”.Retrospectivity of a law does not make it automatically unreasonable. A statute imposing a restriction with retrospective effect is not prima facie unreasonable, but retrospectivity is an element to be taken into consideration in determining whether the restriction is reasonable or not.A law may be reasonable, but the restriction imposed by it on the exercise of freedom may not be reasonable. A prohibition on the fundamental right to carry on occupation, trade or business is not regarded as reasonable if is it imposed not in the interests of the general public but keeping in view the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of a community whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the claimant.Q. In the state of Madhya Pradesh, an Act was passed to the extent that during the agricultural season, no one should engage in the manufacture of beedies. The object and intent of the legislature was that as there was dearth of labour in the agriculture sector, it was required to divert labour to the agriculture sector. This restriction of the freedom of occupation was questioned. Is this a reasonable restriction and is the state justified in doing so? a)The law is reasonable as the entire country depends on agriculture.b)The law is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of occupation.c)The law is reasonable if we understand the intent of the legislation.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute. They are subject to restrictions placed in the subsequent clauses of Article19 according to the procedure established by law. No restrictions can be placed by mere executive or departmental instructions. However, these restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Each of these rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by Parliament.Restrictions may be enacted “in the interests of” public order of the general public. A restriction can be said to be in the interest of public order only if the connection between the restriction and the public order is direct and proximate. Hence a restriction to be constitutionally valid must satisfy the following two tests:A legislation arbitrarily invading the right of a person cannot be regarded as reasonable. A restriction to be valid must have a direct and proximate nexus with the object which the legislation seeks to achieve and the restriction must not be in excess of that object i.e., a balance between the freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) to (g) and the social control permitted by clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19. It is the substance of legislation and not its appearance or form which is to be taken into consideration while assessing its validity. This introduces the principle of ‘proportionality’. This means the court would consider whether the restriction imposed by legislation on the Fundamental Rights are disproportionate to the situation and are “not the least restrictive of the choices”.Retrospectivity of a law does not make it automatically unreasonable. A statute imposing a restriction with retrospective effect is not prima facie unreasonable, but retrospectivity is an element to be taken into consideration in determining whether the restriction is reasonable or not.A law may be reasonable, but the restriction imposed by it on the exercise of freedom may not be reasonable. A prohibition on the fundamental right to carry on occupation, trade or business is not regarded as reasonable if is it imposed not in the interests of the general public but keeping in view the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of a community whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the claimant.Q. In the state of Madhya Pradesh, an Act was passed to the extent that during the agricultural season, no one should engage in the manufacture of beedies. The object and intent of the legislature was that as there was dearth of labour in the agriculture sector, it was required to divert labour to the agriculture sector. This restriction of the freedom of occupation was questioned. Is this a reasonable restriction and is the state justified in doing so? a)The law is reasonable as the entire country depends on agriculture.b)The law is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of occupation.c)The law is reasonable if we understand the intent of the legislation.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute. They are subject to restrictions placed in the subsequent clauses of Article19 according to the procedure established by law. No restrictions can be placed by mere executive or departmental instructions. However, these restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Each of these rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by Parliament.Restrictions may be enacted “in the interests of” public order of the general public. A restriction can be said to be in the interest of public order only if the connection between the restriction and the public order is direct and proximate. Hence a restriction to be constitutionally valid must satisfy the following two tests:A legislation arbitrarily invading the right of a person cannot be regarded as reasonable. A restriction to be valid must have a direct and proximate nexus with the object which the legislation seeks to achieve and the restriction must not be in excess of that object i.e., a balance between the freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) to (g) and the social control permitted by clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19. It is the substance of legislation and not its appearance or form which is to be taken into consideration while assessing its validity. This introduces the principle of ‘proportionality’. This means the court would consider whether the restriction imposed by legislation on the Fundamental Rights are disproportionate to the situation and are “not the least restrictive of the choices”.Retrospectivity of a law does not make it automatically unreasonable. A statute imposing a restriction with retrospective effect is not prima facie unreasonable, but retrospectivity is an element to be taken into consideration in determining whether the restriction is reasonable or not.A law may be reasonable, but the restriction imposed by it on the exercise of freedom may not be reasonable. A prohibition on the fundamental right to carry on occupation, trade or business is not regarded as reasonable if is it imposed not in the interests of the general public but keeping in view the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of a community whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the claimant.Q. In the state of Madhya Pradesh, an Act was passed to the extent that during the agricultural season, no one should engage in the manufacture of beedies. The object and intent of the legislature was that as there was dearth of labour in the agriculture sector, it was required to divert labour to the agriculture sector. This restriction of the freedom of occupation was questioned. Is this a reasonable restriction and is the state justified in doing so? a)The law is reasonable as the entire country depends on agriculture.b)The law is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of occupation.c)The law is reasonable if we understand the intent of the legislation.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute. They are subject to restrictions placed in the subsequent clauses of Article19 according to the procedure established by law. No restrictions can be placed by mere executive or departmental instructions. However, these restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Each of these rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by Parliament.Restrictions may be enacted “in the interests of” public order of the general public. A restriction can be said to be in the interest of public order only if the connection between the restriction and the public order is direct and proximate. Hence a restriction to be constitutionally valid must satisfy the following two tests:A legislation arbitrarily invading the right of a person cannot be regarded as reasonable. A restriction to be valid must have a direct and proximate nexus with the object which the legislation seeks to achieve and the restriction must not be in excess of that object i.e., a balance between the freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) to (g) and the social control permitted by clauses (2) to (6) of Art. 19. It is the substance of legislation and not its appearance or form which is to be taken into consideration while assessing its validity. This introduces the principle of ‘proportionality’. This means the court would consider whether the restriction imposed by legislation on the Fundamental Rights are disproportionate to the situation and are “not the least restrictive of the choices”.Retrospectivity of a law does not make it automatically unreasonable. A statute imposing a restriction with retrospective effect is not prima facie unreasonable, but retrospectivity is an element to be taken into consideration in determining whether the restriction is reasonable or not.A law may be reasonable, but the restriction imposed by it on the exercise of freedom may not be reasonable. A prohibition on the fundamental right to carry on occupation, trade or business is not regarded as reasonable if is it imposed not in the interests of the general public but keeping in view the susceptibilities and sentiments of a section of a community whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the claimant.Q. In the state of Madhya Pradesh, an Act was passed to the extent that during the agricultural season, no one should engage in the manufacture of beedies. The object and intent of the legislature was that as there was dearth of labour in the agriculture sector, it was required to divert labour to the agriculture sector. This restriction of the freedom of occupation was questioned. Is this a reasonable restriction and is the state justified in doing so? a)The law is reasonable as the entire country depends on agriculture.b)The law is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of occupation.c)The law is reasonable if we understand the intent of the legislation.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.