Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

Must Read

Madras HC Reaffirms Trial Court’s Decree in Case of Thimmaraya & Ors. V. Gowrammal

A Civil Revision Petition was filed by three petitioners against the dismissal of their application on the file of...

Delhi High Court Disposes Ashok Arora’s Appeal Against Suspension From Supreme Court Bar Association

In the present Petition, Senior Advocate Ashok Arora challenged an Order passed by a Single Judge bench. The Order...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application To Quash Prima Facie Allegations of Criminal Intimidation and Outraging Modesty

Allahabad High Court, on 17th November 2020, dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and refused to...

Delhi High Court Prohibits Gathering in Public Places To Celebrate Chhat Puja

The Order had come in a Writ Petition moved by Shri Durga Jan Seva Trust. The Petition sought to...

Bombay High Court Directs State To Pass Tribe Claim Within Two Weeks, Refuses To Intervene on Merits of Claim Itself

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar passed an order...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition by Allocating Respondent To Vacancy in IFS Cadre

On 16th November 2020, the Division Bench at Kerala High Court, consisting of Honourable Justice A.M. Shaffique and Honourable...

Follow us

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable restriction on the export of goods does not violate Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Thus, it dismissed the writ petition by terming it to be a ‘purely policy matter’.

Brief Facts

On 23rd January 2020, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a circular with respect to Merchant Trading Transactions. Clause 2(iii) of the Circular restricted import/export of goods which were not permitted under the prevailing Foreign Trade Policy. Similar circulars were issued by RBI at various instances- August’00, June’03. January’14 and March’14. Further, in the backdrop of COVID-19, the Union Government prohibited the export of N-95/ FFP2 masks or its equivalent.

The Petitioner was a businessman and trader of pharmaceutical products including Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). He operated under the ‘Merchant Trade Transactions’ and had negotiated a deal for supply of PPE kits with a buyer from the United States of America. The order was purchased from a Chinese company via financial transactions facilitated by the RBI and an Indian bank. However, the government notification when read along with the RBI circular had invalidated his trade, rendering it to be a void sale/ export.

Therefore, he filed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the impugned notification and circular. He alleged that it violated Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution which provides for the fundamental right to carry on any trade or business.   

Court’s Observations

The Court rejected the Petitioner’s submission that the notification inhibited the freedom of trade and commerce. It observed that the impugned provision does not put a blanket ban on export and import of all the products. The Petitioner was free to either export products not placed under the restricted category or sell the restricted ones within the territory of India. 

It also commented on the current pandemic situation in India and stated that a large number of front-line health workers and doctors have succumbed to COVID-19 due to inadequate Personal Protective Equipment Kits.

Thus, it is imperative for the government playing the role of a welfare State to ensure adequate supply rather than garnering profits.

Further, it remarked that the Government of India was the best judge to decide on the terms and conditions of foreign trade. Under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, power is conferred to the Government to regulate the foreign trade policies in the light of prevailing circumstances. The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgement in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India. The Apex Court had held that Courts should not interfere with State policies unless has been well-established that the provisions are fraudulent and mala-fide in the eyes of law.  

Court’s Order

The Order was pronounced by a Division Bench consisting of Justice S. C. Sharma and Justice Shailendra Shukla. It held that it was within the powers of the Central Government to regulate export and import of any product within the subcontinent of India.

Further, it held that the present case was ‘purely a policy matter’ and the Court shall not interfere unless it would amount to a violation of fundamental rights. 

Click here to read the judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras HC Reaffirms Trial Court’s Decree in Case of Thimmaraya & Ors. V. Gowrammal

A Civil Revision Petition was filed by three petitioners against the dismissal of their application on the file of the Sub-Judge, Hosur. The case...

Delhi High Court Disposes Ashok Arora’s Appeal Against Suspension From Supreme Court Bar Association

In the present Petition, Senior Advocate Ashok Arora challenged an Order passed by a Single Judge bench. The Order held that Mr Arora had...

Allahabad High Court Dismisses Application To Quash Prima Facie Allegations of Criminal Intimidation and Outraging Modesty

Allahabad High Court, on 17th November 2020, dismissed an application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and refused to quash the charge sheet (dated...

Delhi High Court Prohibits Gathering in Public Places To Celebrate Chhat Puja

The Order had come in a Writ Petition moved by Shri Durga Jan Seva Trust. The Petition sought to quash and set aside an...

Bombay High Court Directs State To Pass Tribe Claim Within Two Weeks, Refuses To Intervene on Merits of Claim Itself

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S.S. Shinde and Madhav Jayajirao Jamdar passed an order on 17th November 2020 in...

Kerala High Court Dismisses Petition by Allocating Respondent To Vacancy in IFS Cadre

On 16th November 2020, the Division Bench at Kerala High Court, consisting of Honourable Justice A.M. Shaffique and Honourable Justice Gopinath. P heard the...

AP High Court: If an Auction Is Conducted by a Cooperative Bank, the Property Ceases to be Property of the State

A single-judge bench consisting of honourable justice Ninala Jayasurya gave orders on the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The petition challenges the action...

Madras HC Rules in Favour of the Authorities in FMGE Examination, Finds Writ Petitions Against the Exam Void of Merit

Three aspirants of Foreign Medical Examinations moved to the High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. They...

Hong Kong High Court Rules for Independent Mechanisms To Be Set up To Deal With Complaints Against Police Officers

The present suit was brought by a journalist association because of the police brutality that the protestors faced in the protests against the China...

Madras High Court Maintains That Government Policy Is To Prioritize Own State’s Candidates and Sets Aside Nativity Certificate Rejection Order

Varsha Totagi, a NEET aspirant filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. She had been denied Nativity Certificate without which...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -