Article 19(1)(g) of Indian Constitution

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Alok Aradhe struck down a Chhattisgarh government tender condition requiring bidders to have prior supply experience worth ₹6 crores only with state agencies, holding it irrational, disproportionate, and violative of Article 19(1)(g) as it created an artificial barrier against eligible national suppliers. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (2025)? 

• Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd., a Mumbai-based company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, is the appellant with prior experience in supplying sports kits to various state departments in Bihar, Karnataka, Gujarat, and Delhi. 
• The State of Chhattisgarh and the State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha Chhattisgarh are the respondents. 
• On 21st July 2025, three tender notices were issued through the Government e-Market Place Portal for supply of sports kits to government schools in Chhattisgarh. The contracts were valued at Rs. 15.24 crores, Rs. 13.08 crores, and Rs. 11.49 crores respectively, covering 5,540 cluster resource centres across 33 districts. 
•  Condition No. 4 titled "Past Performance Restriction" required bidders to have supplied sports goods worth at least Rs. 6.00 crores (cumulative) to State Government agencies of Chhattisgarh in the last three financial years. This condition rendered the appellant ineligible to participate. 
• The appellant's representation dated 29th July 2025 received no response. Subsequently, three writ petitions were filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court challenging the tender conditions. 
• During pendency, a corrigendum dated 7th August 2025 deleted conditions 1, 11, and 13, but retained condition No. 4. 
• The High Court dismissed the writ petitions by orders dated 11th and 12th August 2025, upholding the impugned condition on grounds that it ensured selection of capable bidders and was prevalent in other states. 
• The appellant contended that the condition violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, excluded competent suppliers from outside the State, discouraged wider participation, and fostered cartelisation. 
• The respondents argued that the condition was necessary given Chhattisgarh's geographic and social conditions, particularly Naxal-affected areas, to ensure timely delivery and quality compliance.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court emphasised that whilst the Government has discretion in setting tender terms, such discretion is not unlimited and cannot be exercised arbitrarily. Judicial interference is warranted where tender conditions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or actuated by mala fides. 
• The Court reiterated that the doctrine of level playing field, embodied in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, requires that all equally placed competitors must be given equal opportunity to participate in trade and commerce. The doctrine is designed to prevent the State from skewing the market in favour of a few by erecting artificial barriers. 
• The Court held that eligibility criteria must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved—supply of good quality sports kits at the best price—and should encourage wider participation to safeguard the public exchequer. 
• The Court found that the impugned condition created an artificial barrier by linking eligibility with past local supplies, thereby excluding bidders who, though financially sound and technically competent, had no prior dealings with Chhattisgarh Government agencies. 
• The Court observed that the object of public procurement is to secure quality goods and services for the benefit of the public exchequer, which can be achieved by requiring bidders to demonstrate financial capacity, technical experience, and past performance in contracts of similar nature, regardless of the place of performance. 
• The Court held that confining eligibility to one State is irrational and disproportionate to the goal of ensuring effective delivery. Such restriction cannot be justified as reasonable under Article 19(6) of the Constitution. 
• The Court found that the condition operated as a closed door to outsiders, excluded competent suppliers who may have executed larger contracts in other states or for Central Government, restricted competition, and promoted cartelisation. 
• The Court rejected the State's justification that local experience was necessary for Naxal-affected areas, observing that:  
  • (i) the tender was for sports kits, not security-sensitive equipment involving no special risk;  
  • (ii) only some districts are Naxal-affected, and treating the entire State uniformly was incorrect; and  
  • (iii) bidders unfamiliar with topography could engage local supply chains. 
  • The Court concluded that the impugned tender condition was arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, lacking rational nexus to the object of ensuring effective supply of sports kits. 
• The Court held that the condition offended Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 
• Accordingly, the Court quashed the High Court's orders and the tender notices, granting liberty to the respondents to issue fresh tenders. 

What is Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and Its Violation? 

• Nature and Scope of Article 19(1)(g): 
  • Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India grants all citizens the fundamental right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. 
  • This right is broad and general in nature, allowing individuals to choose their business or profession freely without arbitrary restrictions from the State. 
  • The right under Article 19(1)(g) is not absolute and does not extend to illegal activities or professions prohibited by law. 
  • Article 19(1)(g) is subject to Article 19(6) of the Constitution, which allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interest of the general public. 
  • Article 19(6) also permits the enactment of laws prescribing professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade, or business. 
  • The doctrine of level playing field is an important concept embodied in Article 19(1)(g), requiring that all equally placed competitors must be given equal opportunity to participate in trade and commerce. 
  • The doctrine of level playing field is designed to prevent the State from skewing the market in favour of a few by erecting artificial barriers, subject to considerations of public interest. 
• Limitations on the Right: 
  • Citizens cannot claim a fundamental right to hold a specific post or job of their choice under Article 19(1)(g). 
  • There is no obligation on the State or any statutory body to make a business profitable or to provide customers or business opportunities to any person. 
  • If a person's occupation of a place is unlawful, they cannot invoke Article 19(1)(g) to justify conducting business from that location. 
  • Fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) cannot be used to justify illegal acts or to prevent authorities from performing their lawful statutory duties. 
  • The Supreme Court has upheld legislation aimed at social control of private enterprise and allowed restrictions on private activities to align with the Directive Principles of State Policy, recognising India's controlled and planned economy.